Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Sustainment 2018 AEMR.pdf2. Installation Energy...
84
Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Sustainment Department of Defense Annual Energy Management and Resilience Report (AEMRR) Fiscal Year 2018 June 2019 COST ESTIMATE The estimated cost of this report for the Department of Defense is approximately $273,000 in Fiscal Years 2018‒2019. This includes $211,000 in expenses and $61,000 in DoD labor. Cost estimate generated on April 30, 2019 / RefID: 1-9DD052E
Transcript of Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Sustainment 2018 AEMR.pdf2. Installation Energy...
Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense
for
Sustainment
Department of Defense
Annual Energy Management and
Resilience Report (AEMRR)
Fiscal Year 2018
June 2019
COST ESTIMATE
The estimated cost of this report for the Department of Defense is approximately $273,000 in
Fiscal Years 2018‒2019. This includes $211,000 in expenses and $61,000 in DoD labor. Cost
estimate generated on April 30, 2019 / RefID: 1-9DD052E
1
(This page is intentionally left blank)
2
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 4
2. Installation Energy Program Management ........................................................................ 6
Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Energy (ODASD(Energy)) .............. 6
Army ........................................................................................................................................ 6
Department of the Navy (DoN) ................................................................................................ 7
Air Force ................................................................................................................................. 8
Defense Agencies ..................................................................................................................... 9
3. Energy Resilience ................................................................................................................. 10
New Energy Resilience Reporting Requirements .................................................................. 11
Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) Energy Resilience ................................................ 11
Policy Updates ....................................................................................................................... 12
Installation Energy Plan (IEP) Guidance ............................................................................. 12
ESPC/UESC Guidance .......................................................................................................... 12
Utilities Privatization (UP) Guidance ................................................................................... 13
Lines of Effort ....................................................................................................................... 13
Energy Resilience Exercises .................................................................................................. 13
Energy Resilience Assessment (ERA) Tool ............................................................................ 14
Energy Resilience Project Funding ....................................................................................... 14
Energy Resilience Technology and Infrastructure Solutions ................................................ 16
Utility Outages ...................................................................................................................... 18
Energy Resilience in the Services .......................................................................................... 19
Army ...................................................................................................................................... 19
DoN ....................................................................................................................................... 21
Air Force ................................................................................................................................ 24
4. Cybersecurity and Facility Related Control Systems (FRCS) ........................................ 28
5. DoD’s Progress to Achieve Statutory Energy Management Requirements ................... 32
Installation Energy Demand Overview ................................................................................. 32
Energy Consumption ............................................................................................................. 32
Renewable Energy ................................................................................................................. 33
Army ...................................................................................................................................... 34
DoN........................................................................................................................................ 37
3
Air Force ............................................................................................................................... 39
Defense Agencies ................................................................................................................... 41
List of Energy Acronyms ..................................................................................... A-1
Compliance Matrix ............................................................................................... B-1
Energy Performance Master Plan ......................................................................... C-1
DoD Energy Performance Summary ................................................................... D-1
Senate Report 115-262, page 150, accompanying S. 2987, the John S. McCain
National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2019 .......................................... E-1
Senate Report 115-269, page 8, accompanying S. 3024, the Military Construction,
Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill, 2019 ............................................ F-1
Section 2880 of the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2018 (P.L. 115-91) ......................... G-1
Energy Consumption by Installation ................................................................... H-1
References ............................................................................................................... I-1
4
1. Introduction
The chief priority of the Department of Defense (DoD) energy policy is to ensure mission readiness
of the armed forces by pursuing energy security and energy resilience. In today’s technology-
dependent environment, energy requirements are inseparable from the Department’s mission
requirements, whether discussing weapons platforms or the installations and systems that support
those capabilities around the globe. As such, energy resilience, which enables the capabilities of
weapons platforms, facilities, and equipment, is a critical investment that must be part of the
Department’s research, acquisition, operations, and sustainment conversations.
An important opportunity exists for the Department to improve its installation energy resilience
posture at the Department’s 500 installations worldwide. The nearly 300,000 buildings, covering
1.9 billion square feet, on these installations account for nearly 30 percent of DoD’s total energy
use1. Aligning installation energy requirements directly to mission and readiness requirements,
agnostic of specific technologies or practices, is the Department’s key opportunity to improve
energy resilience. Increasing efficiencies, lowering costs, and enhancing backup power options
all have significant impact on energy resilience when implemented as part of a comprehensive
energy strategy focused on maintaining mission-essential functions in the face of system disruption
or stress. The Department will ensure energy resilience and reliability for critical missions while
treating installation energy as a force multiplier in support of military readiness.
The Annual Energy Management and Resilience Report (AEMRR) details the Department’s Fiscal
Year (FY) 2018 performance toward achieving greater energy resilience across its installation
enterprise. Additionally, this AEMRR will discuss the Department’s efforts to achieve the
statutory energy management requirements outlined in title 10 U.S.C. § 2925(a). Figure 1
summarizes the Department’s progress toward its FY 2018 energy goals. While the DoD has made
progress towards these statutory goals, continued focus and effort is required.
1 Installation energy includes energy needed to power fixed installations and enduring locations as well as non-tactical vehicles
(NTVs), whereas operational energy is the energy required for training, moving, and sustaining military forces and weapons
platforms for military operations and training—including energy used by tactical power systems and generators at non-enduring
locations.
5
Goals & Objectives Metric Component FY 2018 Goal
Consume More Electric
Energy From Renewable
Sources
42 U.S.C. § 15852(a)
Total renewable electricity
consumption as a
percentage of total facility
electricity consumption.
DoD 5.88%
7.5%
ARMY 8.02%
NAVY 2.73%
USMC 10.79%
USAF 6.79%
Produce Or Procure More
Energy From Renewable
Sources
10 U.S.C. § 2911(g)
Total renewable energy
(electric & non-electric)
produced or procured as a
percentage of total facility
electricity consumption.
DoD 15.76%
25% by 2025
ARMY 17.00%
NAVY 29.42%
USMC 15.73%
USAF 7.29%
Figure 1: FY 2018 Progress Toward Installation Energy Goals
The FY 2018 AEMRR is compiled based upon the following mandates:
Section 548 of the National Energy Conservation Policy Act (NECPA) of 1978 (42 U.S.C.
§ 8258) which requires Federal agencies to describe their energy management activities;
Title 10 U.S.C. § 2925, which requires DoD to submit to Congress an AEMRR describing
its installation energy activities;
Title 10 U.S.C. § 2911(c)(1), which requires DoD to establish energy performance goals
for transportation systems, support systems, utilities, and infrastructure and facilities;
Title 10 U.S.C. § 2688 (g)(4), which requires DoD to report progress in meeting energy
resilience metrics for all utility conveyance contracts entered into.
This report also responds to the following reporting requirements:
Senate Report 115-262, page 150, accompanying S. 2987, the John S. McCain National
Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for FY 2019) (Appendix E)
o Establishment of the energy resilience project development and implementation office
Senate Report 115-269, page 8, accompanying S. 3024, the Military Construction,
Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill, 2019 (Appendix F)
o Critical energy systems outside DoD property
Section 2880 of the NDAA for FY 2018 (P.L. 115-91) (Appendix G)
o Energy Security for military installations in Europe
The compliance matrix in Appendix B illustrates all reporting requirements satisfied by this report.
6
2. Installation Energy Program Management
Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Energy (ODASD(Energy))
The Assistant Secretary of Defense for Sustainment (ASD(Sustainment)) serves as the principal
staff assistant and advisor to the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition & Sustainment
(USD(A&S)), Deputy Secretary of Defense (DEPSECDEF), and Secretary of Defense (SECDEF)
on logistics and materiel readiness in the DoD and is the principal logistics official within the
senior management of the DoD.
Within the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Sustainment (OASD(Sustainment)),
the Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Energy (ODASD(Energy)) is
responsible for issuing energy policy and guidance to DoD Components; coordinating DoD energy
strategies; overseeing energy programs (e.g., energy resilience, operational energy, and distributed
and renewable energy); and engaging with the Military Services, Defense Agencies, and other
stakeholders. Additionally, ODASD(Energy) coordinates all congressional reports related to the
Department’s energy programs.
Army
The Army’s energy, water, and sustainability programs fall under the purview of the Assistant
Secretary of the Army for Installations, Energy and Environment (ASA(IE&E)).
Using guidance provided by the Office of the Assistant Chief of Staff for Installation Management
(OACSIM), landholding Army Commands monitor their progress relative to strategic energy
security and sustainability goals and take necessary actions to improve performance. The Army
periodically reevaluates metrics to foster a culture of continual process improvement. To further
the alignment of energy and water performance to mission performance, the Army continues to
integrate energy and water security into total Army readiness. Improving access to reliable and
secure energy and water resources supports strategic resource management goals.
The Army’s Energy Security and Sustainability (ES2) Strategy fosters more adaptable and resilient
installations that are prepared for a future defined by complexity, uncertainty, adversity, and rapid
change. The ES2 has served as a foundational driver for more detailed policy articulating the
Army’s evolving stance on energy and water resilience. In FY 2017, the Army Directive 2017-07
(Installation Energy and Water Security Policy) coupled with the Energy and Water Goal
Attainment Responsibility Policy for Installations formalized the host of legacy energy and water
management requirements, specifying their application to the Army. These two Army policy
documents underscore effective energy and water management that results in energy and water
resilience to ensure Army mission readiness in a rapidly changing world.
7
Department of the Navy (DoN)
The Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Energy, Installations and Environment (ASN(EI&E)) is
the designated senior DoN official for energy responsible for formulating Department‐wide
policies, procedures, advocacy, and strategic plans, as well as overseeing all DoN functions and
programs related to installation, energy, and water resilience. The Deputy Assistant Secretary of
the Navy for Installations & Facilities (DASN(I&F)) is the principal advisor to ASN(EI&E).
Within the Secretariat, the Director, Installation Resilience facilitates the DoN Installation Energy
Policy Board, which brings together the senior Navy and Marine Corps officials for energy, water,
and installation resilience strategy and policy decisions. The larger DoN energy community
consists of a broad range of subject matter experts, analysts, and program managers.
The Office of the Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) Shore Installation Management Division
(OPNAV N46) is responsible for developing policy and programming resources for the Navy’s
Facility Energy Program. OPNAV N46 also ensures compliance with DoN shore energy goals.
The Commander, Navy Installations Command (CNIC) is the shore integrator, responsible for
current and future shore energy and water requirements across warfare enterprises. CNIC N4
(Facilities and Environmental Department), N44 (Base Operations Support (BOS) Programs),
N441 (Energy and Utilities Branch), and the Energy Headquarters Program Director (Energy,
HPD) are responsible for developing and integrating energy requirements across the Shore
Enterprise.
The Naval Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFAC) provides technical and business expertise
for facilities, utilities, energy, and other infrastructure support services to the Navy and Marine
Corps and serves as the Navy’s technical authority for the cybersecurity of facility-related control
systems (FRCS). The Assistant Commander for Public Works at NAVFAC Headquarters serves
as the NAVFAC Energy Officer and oversees the development of relevant energy guidance,
standards, processes, and internal policy to NAVFAC. Within NAVFAC, the Resilient Energy
Program Office (PW8) mission is to deliver installation energy security solutions to provide access
to efficient, resilient, and reliable energy optimizing use of private and appropriated funds.
The Deputy Commandant for Installations and Logistics (DC I&L) is responsible for establishing
energy and water management policy for United States Marine Corps (USMC) installations in
accordance with the Commandant’s direction. The Assistant Deputy Commandant for
Installations and Logistics (Facilities) serves as the single point of contact responsible for program
management and resourcing. The Commander, Marine Corps Installations Command
(COMMCICOM) oversees program planning and execution with direct support provided by the
MCICOM Facilities Director (MCICOM G-F). The Energy and Facility Operations Section
(MCICOM GF‐1) serves as the Marine Corps Installations Energy Program Manager.
8
Air Force
Each component of the Air Force Energy Team plays an important role in striving to meet the
Service-wide energy priorities to improve resilience, optimize demand, and assure supply. These
priorities support the Air Force vision of “enhance mission assurance through energy assurance,”
which steers the Air Force toward facility energy that is resilient, cost-effective, and cleaner.
The Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Installations, Environment and Energy (SAF/IE)
provides guidance, direction, and oversight for all matters pertaining to the formulation, review,
and execution of plans, policies, programs, budgets, and Air Force positions regarding federal and
state legislation and regulations related to energy and water use. Oversees and monitors all Air
Force energy programs. Establishes Air Force energy direction, strategy, policy, and priorities and
oversees implementation of analytical methods to integrate energy considerations into all Air
Force business processes.
Headquarters Air Force (HQ USAF) provides information to support governance and oversight of
energy management activities. Provides procedures and objectives to address and manage Air
Force facility energy and water consumption, throughput, and requirements in alignment with
policies and strategic direction. Develops policies, guidance, procedures, and practices to enhance
Air Force energy assurance with the goal of energy resilience, and ensure a state of energy security
to meet mission essential requirements.
The Air Force Installation and Mission Support Center (AFIMSC) and its primary subordinate
unit, Air Force Civil Engineer Center (AFCEC) develops and executes facility energy programs,
plans, and policies in support of Air Force strategic energy priorities and goals, integrated with
Major Command mission requirements. Assesses energy use and risks to identify investment
opportunities and efficiency measures to enhance capability and mission success. Provides
guidance on energy project development, utility recommendations and requirements validation,
capabilities oversight and resource advocacy, and oversight and guidance on budgeting and
execution funding. Promotes policies, procedures, and practices to enhance Air Force energy
security and resilience. Develops standardized processes for facility energy program. Provides
assistance to installations to meet energy goals and objectives.
The Air Force Office of Energy Assurance (OEA) develops, implements, and oversees an
integrated facility energy portfolio, including privately financed, large-scale, clean energy projects
that will provide uninterrupted access to the energy necessary for mission success.
Installation personnel develop installation energy and water plans to support or supplement Air
Force energy goals/strategies, execute those plans, measure and evaluate their base energy usage
and costs, promote total energy awareness, and nominate successful people and units for energy
awards. Installation energy managers provide daily management and oversight of the installation’s
9
energy plans, energy awareness, education and training, audits, utility billing, and energy and
water consumption reporting.
Air Force energy governance provides guidance and oversight of given developments in
technology, shifts in resource availability, and changes in operational requirements. By its
governance structure integrating energy management across mission areas and implementing
cross-functional strategies and policies, the Air Force can improve its operational capabilities and
maximize its fiscal resources. Air Force energy governance is in transition, but will comply with
revised draft Air Force Policy Directive 90-17, Energy Management.
Defense Agencies
The Defense Agencies continue to enhance their Installation Energy Management Programs and
each agency has a designated Senior Energy Official to administer their respective program (Table
1).
Table 1: Defense Agencies Senior Energy Officials
DoD Component Senior Energy Official
Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) Energy Program Manager
Defense Commissary Agency (DeCA) Energy Program Manager
Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) Director, Support Services
Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) Chief, Engineering and Logistics Officer
Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) Installation Management Director
Missile Defense Agency (MDA) Environmental Executive
National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) Director, Management Services and Operations
National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA) Director, Installation Operations Office
National Security Agency (NSA) Chief of Facilities and Infrastructure Services
Washington Headquarters Services (WHS) Pentagon Energy Program Manager
The Intelligence Community (IC), in particular, has adopted a community-wide approach to
maximizing energy opportunities. Within the Office of the Director of National Intelligence there
is an IC Energy Management Working Group composed of representatives from the intelligence
agencies with the subject matter expertise and authority to speak for their agency on energy
matters.
10
3. Energy Resilience
Section 101(e)(6) of title 10 U.S.C. defines “energy resilience” as “the ability to avoid, prepare
for, minimize, adapt to, and recover from anticipated and unanticipated energy disruptions in order
to ensure energy availability and reliability sufficient to provide for mission assurance and
readiness, including mission essential operations related to readiness, and to execute or rapidly
reestablish mission essential requirements.” Energy security is defined by section 101(e)(7) of title
10 U.S.C. as “having assured access to reliable supplies of energy and the ability to protect and
deliver sufficient energy to meet mission essential requirements.” The DoD defines availability
and reliability in the FY 2017 “Energy Resilience: Operations, Maintenance, & Testing (OM&T)
Strategy and Implementation Guidance.” Availability is “the availability of an item – under
combined aspects of its reliability, maintainability, and maintenance support – to perform its
required function at a stated instant of time or over a stated period of time.” Reliability is “the
ability of a component or system to perform required functions under stated conditions for a stated
period of time.” Energy resilience includes both availability and reliability as well as two
additional critical parameters: (1) resilience includes the capability to adapt to a changing
environment in order to maintain or rapidly reestablish mission-essential functions in the face of
anticipated and unanticipated disruptions; and, most important, (2) resilience is targeted at
ensuring the readiness of military installations.
DoD relies primarily on commercial power to conduct missions from its installations. Commercial
power supplies can be threatened by a variety of events ranging from natural hazards and physical
attacks on infrastructure, to cyber-attacks on its networks and supervisory control and data
acquisition (SCADA) systems. DoD recognizes that such events could result in power outages
affecting critical DoD missions involving power projection, defense of the homeland, or operations
conducted at installations in the United States directly supporting warfighting missions overseas.
The Department is working to understand and address the vulnerabilities and risk of power
disruptions that can impact mission readiness2.
Energy resilience can be enhanced in a variety of ways, including redundant power supplies;
identification and isolation of mission-critical power loads and associated circuitry; integrated or
distributed fossil, alternative, or renewable energy technologies; microgrid applications including
storage; diversified or alternate fuel supplies; upgrading, replacing, operating, maintaining, or
testing current energy generation systems, infrastructure, and equipment; as well as mission
alternative such as reconstitution or mission-to-mission redundancy. DoD is agnostic toward
specific technologies and practices that are employed to achieve energy resilience; mission
capability concerns override preferences toward specific technology implementation goals. An
2 DoD publishes the status of its energy resilience program at the following:
http://www.acq.osd.mil/eie/IE/FEP_Energy_Resilience.html.
11
important aspect of energy resilience is to establish an iterative planning and implementation cycle
in which mission owners conduct a risk analysis and specify requirements, infrastructure
stakeholders solve for the specified requirements, and the process repeats itself as needed to meet
changing mission parameters.
New Energy Resilience Reporting Requirements
New statutory requirements require DoD to track and report on energy resilience metrics and
efforts to work towards minimizing installation energy disruptions and consequently maintain
mission readiness. These requirements are reflected in updated language to title 10 U.S.C. § 2925,
title 10 U.S.C. § 2911, and title 10 U.S.C. § 2688 (Appendix B). For example, under title 10
U.S.C. § 2925(a)(4) DoD is required to report the amount (MW), downtime tolerance, and
emergency backup generation of each installation’s critical energy loads among other data points.
DoD does not yet possess critical load data at this level of detail for every installation. However,
ODASD(Energy) is actively working with the DoD Components to identify and implement best
practices to gather and report against these new requirements. The Department is working toward
guidance that provides instructions to the DoD Components on how to collect and report against
these revised statutory resilience reporting requirements. This guidance will focus both broadly
on energy resilience and more specifically on items such as the risks inherent with failure to meet
Operations, Maintenance, and Testing (OM&T) requirements and recommendations. In addition
to incorporating lessons learned from Department efforts, guidance updates will also leverage the
lessons learned from the Services’ current internal efforts to quantify and report resilience
requirements. The following sections provide more specific details regarding the ongoing efforts
of the Department and Services to achieve energy resilience.
Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) Energy Resilience
As part of its energy resilience focus, DoD continues to adapt policies and guidance related to
energy infrastructure. In FY 2016, DoD updated DoD Directive (DoDD) 4180.01, “DoD Energy
Policy,” and DoD Instruction (DoDI) 4170.11, “Installation Energy Management” to reflect the
Department’s focus on energy resilience. DoDI 4170.11 specifically requires DoD Components
to identify their critical energy requirements and ensure both primary and emergency energy
generation systems are available to serve these critical loads. While these fundamental elements
of energy resilience are not yet fully captured for all installations across the Department,
ODASD(Energy) is pursuing the collection of this data through issuing updated guidance and
helping DoD Components execute against this guidance. In FY 2017, the DoD published the
“Energy Resilience: Operations, Maintenance, and Testing (OM&T) Strategy and Implementation
Guidance” that outlines an OM&T energy resilience strategy, including development of an
implementation plan that replaces or improves emergency power generation readiness, reduces
system maintenance, and improves fuel flexibility to ensure the supportability of all Department
emergency power generation systems in operation. These updates served as a foundation for
12
continuing to refine policies and guidance in FY 2018 and prompted ODASD(Energy) to pursue
efforts focused on energy resilience.
Policy Updates
Installation Energy Plan (IEP) Guidance
In May 2018, the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Energy, Installations and Environment
(ASD(EI&E)) released updated guidance for DoD Installation Energy Plans (IEPs). IEPs are a
foundational element for the Department’s implementation of energy resilience solutions,
regardless of whether the solutions are technology- or behavior-based. IEPs are the integration of
applicable strategic guidance, plans, and policies into a comprehensive roadmap that will enable
installations to work constructively towards goals and requirements in energy resilience. Based
on recognized master planning guidance in Unified Facilities Criteria (UFC) under Series 2,
Master Planning, IEPs will take into account and address each installation’s current and future
energy and water demand required to sustain critical mission operations; goals set by Congress,
the White House, DoD, or relevant Component; total operating costs; and requirements/concerns
regarding cybersecurity for FRCS. Leveraging input from all installation tenant organizations,
IEPs direct a structured and effective approach to selecting, prioritizing, sequencing and
implementing energy projects and programs that ultimately result in better long-term installation
energy performance and a stronger energy resilience posture.
The FY 2018 update to the original FY 2016 guidance revised the implementation timelines and
parameters to increase focus on critical mission operations and provided more thorough guidance
regarding cybersecurity. In FY 2019, the DoD Components will complete IEPs for all of the
installations listed on the Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Defense
Continuity and Mission Assurance (ODASD(DC&MA)) priorities installations list. In FY 2020,
the DoD Components will complete IEPs for all installations that account for 75 percent of their
Component’s total installation energy. By the end of FY 2021, IEPs shall be completed for all
remaining installations that were not included in the prior years. All IEPs must address
cybersecurity requirements applicable to their respective energy projects, including any
installation or modification of Operational Technology (OT) encompassing Platform IT (PIT),
Control Systems (CS), or FRCS.
In early calendar year (CY) 2019, the DoD Components briefed IEP implementation plans to
DASD(E). The DoD Components are actively pursuing IEPs at their respective installations in
accordance with the timeline requirements laid out in the FY 2018 guidance.
ESPC/UESC Guidance
The Department is authorized to pursue Energy Savings Performance Contracts (ESPC) and Utility
Energy Service Contracts (UESC) under title 42 U.S.C. 8287 and title 10 U.S.C. 2913(d)
respectively. The “Policy on Energy Savings Performance Contracts and Utility Energy Service
13
Contracts” effective November 20, 2018 provides guidance on how to use these funding
mechanisms to enhance energy resilience on DoD installations. It requires executing ESPCs and
UESCs in a manner consistent with existing DoD policies on energy resilience (i.e., DoDI 4170.11,
“Energy Resilience: Operations, Maintenance, and Testing (OM&T) Strategy and Implementation
Guidance,” IEP policy); a cybersecurity plan accompany each project; and maintenance, repair,
and replacement (MR&R) requirements be implemented to improve the long-term success of these
contracts.
Utilities Privatization (UP) Guidance
The UP authority granted under title 10 U.S.C. § 2688 enables the Department to leverage
commercial capital and best practices to improve and sustain utility system reliability in support
of critical warfighter readiness and lethality requirements. The “Supplemental Guidance for the
Utilities Privatization Program” effective February 7, 2019 strengthens the Department’s energy
security posture by providing policy on closing critical cybersecurity and energy resilience gaps
pursuant to law, and in alignment with the National Defense Strategy (NDS). Utility systems
conveyed in whole or in part to a private entity must operate in an energy resilient and cyber-secure
manner and will be held to the same standard as utility systems owned and operated by the
Department. Title 10 U.S.C. § 2688(g)(4) requires DoD to describe its progress in meeting energy
resilience metrics for conveyance contracts it has entered into. As of this writing, DoD has not yet
established metrics to hold private entities accountable for ensuring energy resilience is maintained
when utility systems are conveyed. However, the UP supplemental guidance requires conveyees
to operate, maintain, and test applicable generation systems, infrastructure, and equipment in
compliance with DoD requirements.
Lines of Effort
Energy Resilience Exercises
Since 2016, in collaboration with ODASD(Energy), the Massachusetts Institute of Technology –
Lincoln Labs (MIT-LL) has visited 27 DoD installations to understand their current energy
resilience posture and to outline recommendations for increased energy resilience. During these
site visits, MIT-LL collected a variety of energy resilience information and at some locations,
conducted Energy Resilience Table-Top Exercises (ER TTXs) or Energy Resilience Readiness
Exercises (ERREs). ER TTXs are tabletop exercises that assess an installation’s ability to respond
to different utility disruption scenarios. ERREs are real-world exercises whereby power is turned
off to all or part of an installation to assess the energy resilience posture of the installation. These
exercises help installations understand their energy resilience risk of energy disruptions and
identify infrastructure interdependencies that may not be apparent during routine OM&T.
In FY 2018, the Department conducted four ER TTXs and two ERREs at DoD installations. The
Department is encouraged by the outcomes of these exercises. Although each exercise highlighted
areas where the respective installation has vulnerabilities or incorrect assumptions, the exercises
have also enabled constructive engagement between mission owners and tenants on current
14
resilience posture and have guided investments that will be outlined in IEPs. In FY 2019, the
Department will continue to conduct these exercises, focusing primarily on installation-wide
electricity outages at contiguous United States (U.S.) (CONUS) and outside continental U.S.
(OCONUS) installations. In addition to enabling installations to understand their energy resilience
postures, these exercises will yield a standardized exercise format that the Services can leverage
in future FYs to conduct their own exercises targeted at installations in accordance with Service-
specific resilience planning.
Energy Resilience Assessment (ERA) Tool
The ERA Tool identifies an energy resilience baseline for military installations in terms of the life-
cycle cost and amount of unserved load associated with the current design of the utility system. It
then explores alternative resilient energy technology combinations (referred to as “architectures”)
capable of meeting the mission required electrical loads. This analysis of alternatives provides a
method for comparing different technologies across their life-cycle cost and performance in
meeting electrical loads, a common roadblock when evaluating competing project proposals. The
tool examines over one hundred potential architectures that include both centralized and
distributed energy solutions, diesel and natural gas generation, solar photovoltaics, energy storage,
and fuel cells.
The ERA Tool also determines reliability metrics and performs system reliability modeling for
these different generation sources. The reliability metrics are an input to the Monte Carlo
simulation engine that allows the DoD to predict the amount of unserved load (the availability or
resilience metric) for the critical energy loads identified at each military installation. The ERA
Tool compares the life-cycle cost predictions and availability (energy resilience metric) of
different potential energy resilience solutions at each military installation. This allows mission
owners and installation personnel to determine how much they are willing to spend to achieve
different levels of energy resilience.
Energy Resilience Project Funding
The Energy Resilience and Conservation Investment Program (ERCIP)
The ERCIP spending authority (10 U.S.C. § 2914) and associated Military Construction
(MILCON) funding carve-out is one of the Department’s targeted energy resilience investment
strategies. The Energy Conservation and Investment Program (ECIP) was initiated in FY 2007
with a $35 million appropriation for investments in energy and water conservation projects. The
FY 2016 NDAA added “Resilience” to ECIP, and changed the program to ERCIP, expanding
investments to include energy resilience, availability, and reliability. In FY 2017, Congress
appropriated $150 million for ERCIP, which the Department used to fund 41 projects across DoD
Components. The resilience projects have also shown that they are a good financial investment:
the average savings-to-investment ratio (SIR) for the FY 2017 ERCIP portfolio was 2.1 and the
projects averaged a 7.3 year payback period. Since 2017, Congress has funded the Department’s
15
annual ERCIP request of $150 million, and in some years legislators have added funding for
additional projects ($15 million was added in FY 2018, and $43.4 million was added in FY 2019).
ERCIP provides a tremendous benefit to the Department, offering installations the opportunity to
fund energy resilience projects without competing directly for dollars against other priorities
within the broader MILCON appropriations.
The Department prioritizes projects based on several criteria including:
a) The project’s contribution to mission readiness at prioritized installations;
b) The project’s inclusion in a holistic energy plan for a given installation, region,
department, or Component;
c) The Component’s prioritization of their projects;
d) The project’s SIR and simple payback period (SPP);
e) The project’s synergistic integration of multiple technologies related to energy/water
savings, monitoring, renewable energy generation, and energy resilience/security;
f) Whether the project implements a technology validated in a demonstration program,
such as the Environmental Security Technology Certification Program (ESTCP) or
other similar test bed programs, or a technology that represents significant
improvement over existing technology; and
g) Expected energy and water use reductions as a result of the project.
Non-Federal Financing of Energy Resilience Projects
There are several authorities which enable the Department to leverage private financing for energy
projects. Third-party (or “alternative”) financing is available through Power Purchase Agreements
(PPAs), Enhanced Use Leases (EULs), Utilities Privatization (UP), UESCs, and ESPCs.
The Defense Energy Resilience Bank (DERB)
Despite the Department’s extensive experience in leveraging alternative financing authorities,
DoD has limited insight into the how the financial industry and lender organizations view risk for
energy resilience projects. This lack of insight may be detrimental to the Department and
Components’ ability to craft project proposals that provide clear financial benefits for non-federal
financing institutions and lenders. The Department is currently undertaking a study to leverage its
ERA Tool, developed by MIT-LL, and an increased understanding of the financial industry’s risk
calculus to develop an energy resilience business case framework that allows stakeholders and
decisions makers in government and the private sector to consider wide-scale adoption of
alternative financing for energy resilience projects on DoD installations. It is the intent of the
Department to migrate this business case framework into the ERA Tool, thereby creating a
platform with the capability to not only identify installation-level resilience solutions, but also
propose clear options for appropriations and alternative financing strategies to achieve the
identified solutions.
16
Energy Resilience Technology and Infrastructure Solutions
A variety of technical solutions have the potential to promote energy resilience in the form of
energy generation and infrastructure hardening for DoD missions on fixed installations. Current
technology and equipment solutions include, but are not limited to, small backup generation units,
microgrids, large scale solar photovoltaic arrays, energy storage systems, co-generation plants, and
distribution system hardening. The following technologies are being pursued by the Department
to enhance energy resilience and mission readiness on DoD installations.
Backup Generators
Diesel generators dominate backup power needs across all installations and provide a
reliable power source if and when they are sufficiently maintained and fueled.
Uninterruptable power supplies are also commonly used to bridge the generator startup
time for critical loads that cannot experience brief power outages. However, multiple
analyses conducted by both the OSD and the Components have shown that many
installations would both increase energy resilience and save costs by removing generators
connected to non-critical loads, clustering critical loads to consolidate generation when
oversized units have been installed, and performing adequate testing as described by
manufacturer’s recommendations and the DoD OM&T guidance.
Microgrids
Once a fundamental resilience baseline is implemented on an installation, other energy
technologies enabled by a microgrid can be considered to further increase resilience (and
in some cases, reduce expenses). Microgrids enable multiple power sources to be
connected through the power distribution system, while allowing the installation to isolate,
or island, its power system. Depending on the microgrid architecture, they can also
maintain power with outages at one or more power sources, assuming functional capacity
is still sufficient, or loads are appropriately prioritized. They can also save fuel by only
running the generation assets required to meet the current or expected loads, though this
functionality requires an understanding of installations loads and some advanced planning
for large load swings. Examples of long-established and successful microgrids at DoD
installations include Naval Base Guam Telecommunications Site (NBGTS) Finegayan,
Guam and the Marine Corps Air and Ground Combat Center (MCAGCC) Twentynine
Palms, CA. However, microgrids are not a simple plug and play solution; cooperation with
local utilities, an understanding of mission-critical functions and their associated load
demand, customized engineering to match operation requirements, and large capital
investments are required to ensure successful implementation of this technology.
Distributed Power Generation and Energy Storage
Installations in locations with significant solar or wind resources can consider using these
renewable energy sources in an islandable mode when the main utility grid fails to reduce
fuel consumption and improve energy resilience. Solar photovoltaic (PV) arrays or wind
farms in combination with an islandable inverter can produce significant power without
requiring a fuel supply chain. Since solar and wind power is intermittent, significant usage
of renewable power typically requires adequate and properly sized energy storage systems.
17
While energy storage can increase grid reliability and smooth power fluctuations, round
trip efficiency will increase total energy used on site and add capital and maintenance
expenses. Currently, much of the existing deployed solar PV on DoD installations is
installed without islanding capability, preventing use as a true resilience solution.
Prime Power Co-Generation and Natural Gas
Prime power co-generation plants can provide much or all of an installations’ electricity
requirements. These plants may be cost-effective where natural gas prices are low and grid
power prices are high, but will incur a significant capital expense and require dedicated
staff to operate and maintain them. When an integrated natural gas pipeline is available,
multi-fueled backup generators should also be considered. This will not only minimize the
on-base main fuel storage requirement, but also enable the installation to continue
operations in the event of an extended outage that has disrupted the external liquid fuel
supply chain.
Distribution System Hardening
Improving installation energy resilience often focuses on backup power generation when
the commercial grid experiences a disruption. However, emergency power generation
assets are ineffective if the surrounding distribution system is unable to convey power
between the generation asset and final point of use. Upgrading distribution system
equipment such as switches, power lines, and transformers may be pursued as a standalone
solution if backup generation is already adequate, or an integrated solution when new
backup power generation assets are implemented.
Developing Technologies
Other new energy technologies (e.g., fuel cells, flywheels, advanced microgrids, etc.) may
have a significant future impact for energy resilience on DoD installations. While DoD
funding should continue to be allocated for research and development, these systems must
be thoroughly tested before wide-scale integration. Premature rollout is extremely
expensive, resource intensive, and is likely to fail quickly, increasing the possibility of
residual damage to the installation and power distribution system. Recently small and very
small modular nuclear reactors (SMRs and vSMRs, respectively) have received substantial
attention from both industry and government stakeholders. This technology is still very
early in development and the DoD will continue to monitor its progress. Like with many
other new technologies, external partners can provide significant resources and expertise
to the Department from development to deployment.
To reiterate, the Department is agnostic towards which specific technology solution is
implemented to address an installation’s energy resilience gaps, so long as it enhances mission
readiness and the installation’s ability to maintain or rapidly reestablish mission-critical functions.
Collaboration between installation and mission personnel is critical in order to implement an
appropriate solution. Collaboration between these groups will ensure new assets are properly sized
to requirements and cybersecurity, maintenance, and testing requirements are accounted for. As
the complexity of solutions increases, particularly solutions leveraging less established
technologies, the challenges of integrating these technologies into existing physical and cyber
18
infrastructure increases, and the need for close communication between installation and mission
personnel becomes even more paramount.
Utility Outages
Section 2925(a)(3) of title 10 U.S.C. requires the annual reporting of utility outages at military
installations. In FY 2018, DoD Components reported 562 utility outages that lasted eight hours or
longer, a decrease from the 1,205 events reported in FY 2017. Electrical disruptions account for
the majority of these utility outages (88 percent).
Of the 562 reported outage events lasting longer than eight hours, the Services provided financial
impacts for 223 of the events. The combined length of outages for these 223 events was 1,695
days; the estimated financial impact of these outages was $23,342,102 ($13,771 per outage day).
In FY 2019, DoD will continue to refine its outage data collection techniques and future AEMRRs
will reference the impact of outages accordingly.
As in previous years’ reporting, FY 2018 mitigation efforts associated with DoD utility outages
included upgrading infrastructure, increasing servicing efforts with local utilities, and pursuing
emergency or redundant power supplies such as backup generators. These utility outages were
caused by acts of nature (e.g., weather, storms), equipment failure (e.g., reliability or mechanical
issues), planned maintenance, or some other event (e.g., vehicle accidents causing power outages
or operator error). In FY 2018, 36 percent of the reported utility outages were caused by equipment
failure, 22 percent were caused by planned maintenance, 29 percent were caused by acts of nature,
and ten percent were considered “other” since they did not fall under these categories. The
remaining three percent of reported utility outages did not specify a cause.
Figure 2: FY 2018 Utility Outages by Cause
22%
36%
29%
10%3%
Utility
Outages
By Cause
Planned Maintenance
Equipment Failure
Act of Nature
Other
Unknown
19
Energy Resilience in the Services
Army
Installations and their missions to train, mobilize, and deploy are at risk for energy and water
service disruptions caused by both natural and manmade events. Recognizing this link, the Army
has pivoted its installation energy and water programs and projects to support the readiness of its
installations.
In addition to Congressional and DoD requirements for energy security and resilience, in February
2017, the Army issued Army Directive 2017-07 (Installation Energy and Water Security Policy),
which requires the Army to plan for and support energy and water requirements across four
attributes:
Critical Mission Sustainment (CMS) or the Army’s ability to sustain continuity of
operations for a minimum of 14 days;
Assured Access or the dependable energy supply required for mission requirements;
Infrastructure Condition or the ability of Army installations to reliably meet onsite mission
requirements;
System Operation or the planning and personnel needed conduct required energy and water
security system planning and sustainment.
In July 2018, the Army issued Installation Energy and Water Plan (IEWP) guidance to provide an
actionable pathway for installations to map their current state of resilience and to integrate courses
of action to improve their site security posture in context of broader master planning trends and
initiatives. The Army’s installation energy and water resilience metrics, captured in the
Installation Status Report – Mission Capacity (ISR-MC), have been developed to align directly
with the requirements in Directive 2017-07. This measurement framework provides the basis for
the IEWP requirement.
Additionally, select garrisons have undertaken resilience exercises to better understand Army
installation ability to respond to an actual loss of energy and/or water service. Lessons learned
during these exercises will drive follow-on corrective actions designed to improve coordination
and planning efforts, as well as design projects to improve the energy and water resilience of Army
installations.
ISR-MC
During FY 2018, the Army continued to refine methods for measuring and reporting energy and
water security at installations through the ISR-MC database. ISR-MC provides a standard
platform for evaluating Army installation energy and water security posture to inform decision-
making.
Aligned with the Installation Energy and Water Security Policy, corrective actions recommended
for FY 2018 included encouraging onsite production and island-able capabilities. These efforts
directly addressed the FY 2017 reality that more than a third of respondents lacked any form of
onsite energy generation.
20
CMS scores were leveraged to prioritize energy and water assessments and projects across existing
program areas to meet the 14-day requirement for sustaining critical missions. As of the end of
FY 2018, energy and water security assessments sponsored by the Deputy Assistant Secretary of
the Army for Energy and Sustainability (DASA(E&S)), had been undertaken at Fort Bliss and Fort
Hood, TX; Fort Polk, LA; and Joint Base Lewis-McChord (JBLM), WA. Heading into FY 2019,
plans are under way to leverage energy and water security assessment findings to facilitate IEWP
development for Bliss, Hood, and JBLM, which are all FY 2019 priority installations.
During FY 2018, Army ISR-MC installation baseline ratings spearheaded development of
management and implementation policies and standardized guidance toward achieving energy and
water security for critical missions on Army installations. Such efforts are expected to improve
future ISR-MC performance. Continued progress with respect to these activities will facilitate
future data-driven decision-making that directly supports mission assurance objectives.
Critical Mission Sustainment at Power Projection Platforms (PPPs) and Mobilization Force
Generation Installation (MFGIs)
In FY 2018, Fort Knox was the sole Army MFGI or PPP to meet the energy-related CMS
requirement in Directive 2017-07. In FY 2018, three MFGIs or PPPs achieved the water
requirement: Fort Drum, USAG Ansbach, and USAG Hawaii. In addition, the Army projects both
Fort Bliss and Fort Hood to meet both the energy and water CMS requirements by FY 2022.
Notable Army Initiatives
Installation level initiatives with local utility partners are an important avenue for securing power
to enable continued support of critical missions. One notable project is the Schofield Barracks,
HI, 50 MW biofuel project that became operational in May 2018. This alternative energy project
will provide Schofield Barracks, Field Station Kunia, and Wheeler Army Airfield with secure
resilient energy generation during emergencies. The project includes a 35-year land lease to
Hawaiian Electric Company (HECO), with a 10-year renewal option. As the only firm power
generation facility on Oahu located above the tsunami inundation zone, this project provides a
“black start” capability and enhances grid resilience to benefit both U.S. Army Garrison (USAG)
Hawaii and the surrounding civilian community. HECO developed, financed, designed,
constructed, and maintains the plant, which will run on a mixture of biofuel and conventional fuel.
The Army’s formal operating agreement with HECO states that in the event of a grid outage,
Schofield Barracks, Wheeler Army Airfield, and Field Station Kunia will have the first access to
power. Once the Army verifies they can receive power following the outage, HECO is
contractually obligated to provide 32 MW of power within 2 hours, which is the peak load of the
three USAG Hawaii installations served. Supply assurance projects like this 50 MW biofuel
project are cost effective given the Army does not pay a premium for contingency operations,
which is a requirement the Army considers when leasing land to commercial utility partners.
Utility Outages
21
The Army experienced 98 utility outages in FY 2018 lasting eight hours or longer. Of those
outages, 31 were due to an act of nature, 30 to equipment failure, 18 to planned maintenance, 19
to other causes. The majority of outage events (64) were disruptions to electricity. The Army will
continue to track utility outage events so the information can be used to identify trends and enable
targeted investment towards energy resilience solutions. The Army seeks to decrease the number
of unplanned utility disruption events to improve mission assurance.
DoN
The DoN must conduct critical missions during disruptions to the commercial electrical grid. With
the issuance of the DoN Installation Energy Security Framework in FY 2017, the Services focused
on an examination of energy resilience predominantly as it pertained to critical facilities and access
to emergency power and/or storage, while simultaneously analyzing overall benchmarks for
external and internal grid reliability via System Average Interruption Duration Index (SAIDI) and
System Average Interruption Frequency Index (SAIFI) data. This data-intensive effort was
undertaken to engage the energy community at the local level to collect data, assess, and gather
insight on the overall energy security of the installations.
Utilities outage information was one component factored into the energy security assessments
conducted in FY 2018. With the integrated approach formalized by the DoN’s Installation Energy
Security Framework, the DoN enhanced its processes for analyzing and prioritizing limited
resources in order to take advantage of multiple funding streams and acquisition tools moving
forward. This included establishing an Energy Mission Integration Group (EMIG) which will
enable the Navy to provide reliable, safe, and secure energy to its most important shore enterprise
assets, and prioritize and execute energy projects in a holistic, enterprise-wide manner. The EMIG
consists of members from various systems commands (SYSCOMS) across the enterprise and is
responsible for prioritizing energy security gaps, determining the most effective solutions, and
awarding funds for energy project execution. In FY 2018, the EMIG aggregated energy security
gap inputs from the installation and region level into an enterprise-wide list of energy gaps and
their associated missions. Going forward in FY 2019, the first prioritization of energy security
gaps across the Navy will be finalized and the first set of projects will be identified. Additionally,
the Marine Corps completed Energy Security Assessments (ESA) for each installation, utilizing
the existing Mission Assurance Assessment program to evaluate energy resilience and reliability
factors against critical mission requirements. These assessments identified vulnerabilities in
existing utility infrastructure, staffing, training, and processes that support mission essential tasks
and critical installation services. The ESA recommendations are being prioritized and
incorporated into various investment programs by MCICOM as resources become available.
Energy resilience, reliability, and efficiency were also advanced in FY 2018 through continued
progress in the Navy’s Smart Grid implementation. Smart Grid is a centralized monitoring and
control system used to analyze facility operations data, display the information to users, and
generate actionable information. The Smart Grid Program is employing a four-step process: 1)
cyber secure existing control systems, 2) connect secured control systems to a centralized network,
3) analyze data from an operation center, and 4) provide supervisory control capability of
connected systems. This process results in capabilities include the following:
22
Common Operating Picture (COP): Standard graphical user interface facilitates the rapid
deployment of training for operators throughout the enterprise.
Condition-Based, Predictive Maintenance: Captures physical assets’ performance data
and analyzes real-time diagnostics to improve performance, reducing operation costs.
Automated Fault Detection and Diagnostics: Uses pre-programmed rules to evaluate
equipment and system performance, identifying potential issues and highlighting
opportunities for improved efficiency.
Supervisory Control: Allows energy demand management analytics to manage electric
loads.
Advanced Analytics: Enables identification of patterns to draw conclusions, notify
stakeholders, and, if desired, proactively correct issues in building or utility control
systems.
The Navy is deploying Smart Grids at its nine regions. The Smart Grid program prioritized fleet
concentration areas and high energy consuming facilities for initial integration. Navy Region Mid-
Atlantic completed initial operational capability (IOC) in October 2018. The next planned Smart
Grid IOC deployment is scheduled for Navy Region Southwest in mid-2019. All remaining
regions will see Smart Grid IOC by the end of calendar year 2020.
The DoN remains committed to improving the energy security posture of its installations through
a holistic perspective that will continue to drive future actions to ensure the DoN has the tools and
data necessary for resource optimization. This will allow the DoN to direct funding to address the
prioritized physical and cyber vulnerabilities of the grid, an aging system of electrical
infrastructure, and changing load demands at the installation level.
Notable DoN Initiatives
Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Yuma Arizona (EUL): The concept of maximizing the
advantages of various acquisition mechanisms with the three-pillar approach to energy security is
also supported by examples across the DoN. USMC and Arizona Public Service (APS) developed
a 25 MW microgrid at MCAS Yuma, AZ that began commercial operation in December 2016. In
exchange for using DoN land for the microgrid site, the local utility agreed to provide in-kind
consideration in the form of backup power to the base during grid outages. During normal
operating conditions, APS uses the generators of the microgrid to provide grid stabilization and
peak power generation capability for the utility grid. In return, the system constantly monitors the
commercial grid and forecasts both outages and frequency events and will start up autonomously,
providing guaranteed base-wide backup power for the duration of the outage. This creates a
smooth transition from grid power to the base's own microgrid power, and prevents MCAS Yuma
from experiencing any disruption to its missions during the outage.
The many benefits of this system include instantaneous, base-wide, quality backup power for any
duration and the subsequent avoidance of the extensive time and effort associated with mandatory
maintenance checks that would have been required after an outage, a reduction in the number of
building-level generators, and improved quality of life for all aboard the installation. As of August
23
2018, the microgrid has prevented more than 60 surges, preventing and mitigating impacts that
could have degraded the readiness of both the air station and the surrounding community.
Marine Corps Recruit Depot (MCRD) Parris Island, SC: MCRD Parris Island is planning to install
a variety of new energy systems to help reduce its dependence on commercial grid power and
diversify its energy sources, increasing energy security and resilience. MCRD Parris Island
entered into a $91.1M ESPC with an energy service company (ESCO) that bundles long-term
payback resilience measures with short-term payback efficiency upgrades. The project is planned
to be completed in spring of 2019 and will include the installation of a 3.5 MW cogeneration plant,
3.5 MW of backup steam generators, and 5.7 MW of solar energy. To save and store the energy
generated by the solar panels, a 4 MW/8MW battery energy storage system that can monitor peak
loads and discharge to the base grid is also included.
These energy technologies are integrated into a new microgrid control system capable of fast load-
shedding, allowing redistribution of power across the grid to where it is needed most. The project
will provide the ability to “island” from the commercial grid, provide full back-up power and steam
requirements to the base, and will upgrade outdated utility infrastructure with no up-front capital
cost. The combination of these distributed energy resources will enable the MCRD Parris Island
training mission to continue through or quickly recover from future commercial energy
disruptions.
Naval Submarine Base New London: The DoN executed an EUL of 1 acre of land to
Connecticut Municipal Electric Energy Cooperative (CMEEC) to develop a 7.4 MW fuel cell
using new technologies to improve the installation power quality and energy resilience. During
commercial grid outages, the power from the fuel cell will be used to solely support the
installation. Connecticut’s governor recently approved a $5 million grant to CMEEC from the
State Department of Energy and Environmental Protection to design and construct a microgrid
that will provide full resilience of the critical power requirements on the installation’s waterfront.
As an in-kind consideration, the installation will receive physical and legal access to the fuel
cells through the microgrid. This project benefits from $40 million of physical assets and $5
million in financial incentives available only to non-DoD activities by using $1 million of
underutilized DoN land and an initial capital investment of approximately $1 million.
Naval Station Newport: Leveraging an EUL, the DoN leased 134 acres of contaminated,
undevelopable land at Naval Station Newport for the development of a 21MW solar photovoltaic
facility. The installation will receive in-kind consideration in the form of a 7.9MW combined
heat and power (CHP) plant for on-site resilience and will save $52 million over the lease term.
The EUL allows the DoN to leverage unusable land to gain a CHP plant and enhance energy
resilience at the installation.
Pacific Missile Range Facility (PMRF) Kauai: The DoN partnered with Kauai Island Utility
Cooperative (KIUC) to construct a 19.3MW solar facility and a 70MWh battery energy storage
system at PMRF. The DoN used high-speed switching technology to provide an improved
24
solution for energy resilience that integrates batteries and solar photovoltaic arrays into the grid.
The distributed energy resources support local base and regional grid stability by shifting the
PMRF peak load demand to the new distributed energy resources and energy storage
infrastructure. PMRF will receive in-kind consideration for the value of the land in the form of a
direct express feeder to connect the installation to the new generation asset and microgrid
capabilities, enabling island mode operations in the event of an outage.
Navy Region Europe, Africa, Southwest Asia and Navy Region Far East ESPC: The DoN
partnered with Siemens Government Technologies to integrate the needs of multiple disparate
locations and develop regional savings to improve infrastructure across regional requirements.
The contract includes implementing renewable, efficient, and resilient energy improvements,
such as boiler plant upgrades, building automation systems, energy management control systems,
lighting improvements, renewable energy systems, and water and sewer conservation systems, at
three overseas installations. The initial investment was valued at approximately $69 million and
guarantees $173 million in cost-savings over the 20-year performance period.
Utility Outages
The Navy and Marine Corps continued to improve reporting and tracking of utility (electric,
natural gas, district steam, water, and wastewater) outages in FY 2018 and continual analyses of
this data year over year will help systematically inform future investment decisions. The Navy
reported 161 utility outages in FY 2018 lasting eight hours or longer. Of the total number of
outages, 61 were due to an act of nature and 100 to equipment failure. All reported outage events
were disruptions to electricity. The USMC reported 27 utility outages in FY 2018 lasting eight
hours or longer. Of the total number of outages, 16 were due to acts of nature and 11 to planned
maintenance. The majority of reported outage events (24) were disruptions to electricity.
Air Force
Energy resilience, especially in context of a longer-term, regional electrical grid outage, continues
to be a focal point for the Air Force. DoD and Air Force guidance provides a codified energy
resilience definition as “the ability to prepare for and recover from energy disruptions that impact
mission assurance on military installations.” The Air Force contextualizes resilience under the
term “energy assurance.” The guiding tenant for strategic agility in Air Force installation energy
programs and projects is “mission assurance through energy assurance.” Inherent in energy
assurance is reliability and resilience. While Air Force installations are encouraged to be
innovative in their approach to energy assurance, the OEA continues to deliberately assess and
initiate targeted opportunities to enhance energy and water resilience. To that end, OEA awarded
a contract to develop six IEPs, which will help baseline the requirements for subsequent contracted
efforts to meet the OSD policy memo issued in May 2018. IEPs will focus installation resilience
requirements to the most advantageous technology and funding execution path. While this
includes leveraging technical resources (such as partnering with the Air Force Research Lab and
25
Department of Energy Labs to plan, model, and validate resilience projects), installations are part
of wider supporting communities. As opportunities arise, bases and local communities are forming
partnering arrangements by which shared resilience goals can be realized.
Air Force installations are given tools to help implement emergency management exercises that
include outage scenarios lasting longer than the typical three to five day outage to assess impacts
and identify mitigation and remediation strategies for assuring mission readiness. In many cases,
the exercises include off base partners, such as the municipal and county emergency services and
utility providers. Lessons learned from Air Force staff and installation participation in North
American Electric Reliability Corporation’s GridEx IV, other outage exercises, and real world
events continue to shape the Air Force way forward.
Fundamentally, energy assurance means having power where and when it is needed. Inherent in
energy assurance are reliability and availability metrics for installations energy systems. A
recently revised Air Force Manual 32-1061 allows more coherent reporting and analysis of energy
system performance. Current reporting only provides quantity and duration of outage incidents
based on commodity type, location, and cause. Adopting commercial methods should yield more
pertinent system reliability and availability data for internal and external comparisons. In the
future the Air Force is considering adoption of commercial industry standards.
Notable Air Force Initiatives
The Air Force now has over 140 energy resilience initiatives in development. The following are
some examples of Air Force-led initiatives:
1) Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst (JBMDL), NJ
Phase 2 of the JBMDL Energy Resilience Plan (ERP) project was awarded. Negotiations
continue with NJ Natural Gas to run their proposed Southern Reliability Link through
JBMDL. This new gas supply line will enhance gas reliability to their service area, which
includes the Lakehurst area of JBMDL. Easement income, approaching $500,000, will
help fund resilience efforts. The multi-year upgrade programs of the McGuire and
Lakehurst area electrical distribution systems are nearing completion, with emphasis being
placed on the Lakehurst system. Additionally, JBMDL continues to encourage Jersey
Central Power & Light to maintain and upgrade the privatized electrical distribution system
on the Dix area.
2) RAF Lakenheath (RAFL), UK
The new F-35 12.5 MW power feed substation is in construction and will provide a
redundant power source to the installation. The current primary electrical source will
continue to be a part of the RAFL portfolio. A third and separate power source, which is
still in the design stage, will bring dedicated renewable solar energy from a local solar farm
and connecting directly to the RAFL power network.
3) Schriever AFB, CO
26
Schriever developed a two phase plan to optimize and provide resilience to the operations
of the Central Utilities Plant (CUP). Both phases provide one 8 MW Microgrid project
with redundancy. Preliminary design efforts are underway to upgrade the CUP Energy
Management Control System, microgrid (phase one and two), the cooling system, and
adding more efficient controls for a projected savings of over 52,000 Million British
Thermal Units (MMBtus) annually. The FY 2018 ERCIP to replace generators is under
design.
4) Joint Base San Antonio (JBSA), TX
The Air Force in conjunction with the Defense Logistics Agency-Energy awarded an
ESPC to Ameresco, Inc. on 10 September 2018. This opportunity includes work in all
areas of JBSA including Lackland, Fort Sam Houston, Randolph, Kelly, Camp Bullis and
Medina Annex. This $142.7 million task order leverages $2.7 million of FSRM up-front
direct investment. Under the terms of this task order, approximately 900 buildings
totaling 14.7 million square feet will receive energy conservation upgrades that increase
energy efficiency, reliability, and resilience. This project installs 20 megawatts of
renewable energy systems including CHP and solar PV all inside the fence line, and
enhances energy security via microgrid control systems integrating 20 megawatts of on-
site generation, backup generation assets, and battery energy storage (8 MW-hours) to
keep the bases operational until start-up of backup generators. The ESPC also upgrades
HVAC energy management control systems, adds HVAC thermal energy storage (TES),
installs new lighting & controls, improves building envelopes and implements water
conservation measures. The projected annual energy savings are 356,841 MMBtu/year
providing 24 percent reduction of energy usage for the in-scope facilities.
Utility Outages
In FY 2018, Air Force installations reported 239 outage incidents to their basic energy
commodities (i.e., electricity, water, natural gas, and waste water) with a duration greater than or
equal to 8 hours, a 33 percent decrease from FY 2017. However, reporting only those outages
masks the larger number of under-reported sustained outages (i.e., between 5 minutes and 8 hours).
Electrical incidents comprised 88 percent of the outages compared to water at 9 percent, and
natural gas at 3 percent. No waste water outage incidents were reported. The highest outage
frequency occurred among four MAJCOMs (AFGSC, ACC, PACAF, and AETC). However from
a financial perspective, AFMC reported the most substantial costs at about $4.75 million
($338,708/electrical incident). Overall, the Air Force had a financial impact of $5.36 million
($22,213/all incidents) or, when factoring out AFMC electrical outages, $614,710 ($2,732/all
incidents)
The Air Force has managed to reduce the frequency of outage incidents year over year and
managed their financial impacts. Continued execution of planned maintenance activities should
further decrease outage frequencies. Additionally, new tools such as the ERA Tool and AFCEC’s
Utility System Outage Report Tracker (USORT) are coming online to help installations evaluate,
27
baseline, and monitor their utility systems in the near future. For example, ERA will aid Air Force
installations in planning their future resilience efforts by analyzing multiple energy project
scenarios and providing the most optimal solution based on the installation’s assets. Furthermore,
USORT will help Air Force installations track and report near-realtime outage details such as
start/end times, causation, sourcing (i.e., on- or off-base), etc., on CE DASH as they occur, thereby
streamlining outage reporting.
28
4. Cybersecurity and Facility Related Control Systems (FRCS)
The NDS specifically highlighted the threats faced by the Department’s Control Systems (CS),
particularly those supporting Defense Critical Infrastructure (DCI). CS in DoD are subject to a
growing range of cyber threats as these systems have increasingly become more automated and
connected. The attack surface for would be attackers has increased exponentially as result of the
integration of network-based building management systems, internet of things (IoT) devices, as
well as the connection of legacy control systems such as SCADA into these networks.
Cybersecurity threats to FRCS are not only a DoD issue. Attacks such as “Stuxnet,” “Black
Energy,” and “Crashoverride” were specifically designed to attack the CS of both commercial and
civil owned infrastructure enterprises around the world. As multiple industry and government
advisories have publicized, CS are an active target for cyberattacks such as ransomware,
Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS) attacks, and malware tailored to CS, which could degrade
or deny operations. The “Black Energy” campaign and “HAVEX” malware attack were
specifically designed to exploit control systems at the device level; “Flame” and “Duqu” malware
exploits physically destroyed control systems front-end IT servers and workstations; “TRITON”
was designed to specifically target the industrial safety systems (SIS), or fail safe control systems,
used predominantly in the oil and gas industry; and the Ukraine electric grid attack demonstrated
the capability to cut power to mission critical facilities.
Unfortunately, despite repeated warnings and highly-publicized accounts regarding attacks, many
system operators and owners do not believe their systems are under significant threat. As a result,
throughout the entire national power infrastructure enterprise, many utilities and associated
industries have not focused enough resources and attention on eliminating vulnerabilities that stem
from gaps in user knowledge, ineffective application of cybersecurity frameworks, poor
monitoring of systems for exploitation, and limited, if any, recovery programs. Billions of dollars
have been spent over the last decade to secure the broader networks and devices that generate, edit,
transmit and store protected health information (PHI) and personally identifiable information (PII)
in areas such as the financial markets and healthcare industry. While these efforts have had limited
positive impact on reducing threats, particularly with regards to creating frameworks and
technologies that can be leveraged to provide baseline cybersecurity, they still demonstrate
progress. The same cannot be said for CS in energy infrastructure.
FRCS supporting the Department’s energy infrastructure are essential to performing warfighting
capabilities, executing critical missions, and projecting power. DoD FRCS and other CS are
actively threatened by adversaries and are highly vulnerable to cybersecurity attacks and failures.
The risks to CS increase as more CS devices are connected to networks without appropriate
cybersecurity protections.
The Department has begun to take steps within the CS environment to reduce vulnerabilities and
ensure greater security. The NDS explicitly highlights the need for secure and resilient CS to
provide for warfighting capabilities, execute critical missions, maintain operational readiness, and
29
project power. In FY 2018 the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) and ODASD(DC&MA) published
updated DoD Joint Mission Assurance Assessment (JMAA) Benchmarks to provide mission
assurance stakeholders and mission owners a framework for assessing and cataloging risks to
infrastructure, including cyber infrastructure, that impact DCI.
ASD(EI&E) released updated guidance in April 2018 that outlines a process for owners and
operators of FRCS connected to the DoD Information Network (DoDIN) to account for operational
resilience and cybersecurity defense posture. This FRCS Cybersecurity Plans Guidance
memorandum outlines a framework and provides a template for FRCS owner/operators to develop
a FRCS Cybersecurity Plan to address CS connected to the DoDIN, as well as systems that are
internet-facing or stand alone. The intent of these plans is to assist the DoD Components with
building and recording CS inventories and to ensure a standard format for review/oversight across
the Department. The DoD Components are actively implementing these plans with the
requirement to complete them in FY 2019 for FRCS supporting Defense Critical Assets (DCA),
Tier 1 Task Critical Assets (TCAs), as well as all FRCS that are connected to the DoDIN, are
internet-facing and/or stand-alone, and which require Authorization to Operate (ATO).
In July 2018 the Deputy Secretary of Defense (DSD) published a memorandum titled “Enhancing
Cybersecurity Risk Management for Control Systems Supporting DoD-Owned Defense Critical
Infrastructure” that tasks DoD with implementing standardized best practices, improving CS
information sharing, advancing cyber assessment capabilities, maintaining CS training, and
establishing a reporting requirement to ensure CS cybersecurity accountability. The memorandum
also established the role of Principal Cyber Advisor to advise the Secretary of Defense on efforts
to enhance the security of DoD CS. Many of the memorandum’s requirements are based in
existing DoD policy and statutory requirements and the memorandum provides DoD Components
with clear expectations for timelines associated with adherence to these requirements. For
example, the DoD Components were tasked with applying the National Institute of Standards and
Technology Cybersecurity Framework (NIST CSF) and related guidance consistent with DoDI
8510.01 beginning no later than July 30, 2018 and USCYBERCOM was tasked with disseminating
threat, vulnerability, and mitigation information to all CS stakeholder beginning no later than
September 30, 2018. These are just two examples of the thirteen topline requirements laid out in
the DSD memorandum.
In December 2018 the DoD CIO published a memorandum titled “Control Systems Cybersecurity”
stating that mission assurance is dependent on the robust cybersecurity of the underlying control
systems that support all operations. It is imperative the Department move with deliberate speed to
secure its critical control systems through a comprehensive risk management approach to
inventory systems, assess vulnerabilities, develop mitigations, and remediate risk. The
forthcoming updates to the DoD cybersecurity program, in DoD Instructions 8500.01, 8510.01,
and 8530.01 will include the responsibilities outlined in this memorandum and address policy gaps
in control systems cybersecurity across the DoD enterprise.
Although not specific to FRCS, in FY 2018 DoD also published the 2018 DoD Cyber Strategy.
Per this strategy, DoD’s objectives in cyberspace include:
30
1. Ensuring the Joint Force can achieve its missions in a contested cyberspace environment;
2. Strengthening the Joint Force by conducting cyberspace operations that enhance U.S.
military advantages;
3. Defending U.S. critical infrastructure from malicious cyber activity that alone, or as part
of a campaign, could cause a significant cyber incident;
4. Securing DoD information and systems against malicious cyber activity, including DoD
information on non-DoD-owned networks; and
5. Expanding DoD cyber cooperation with interagency, industry, and international partners.
As it relates to the cybersecurity of FRCS and the broader DoD CS environment, this strategy
aims to:
1. Increase the resilience of U.S. critical infrastructure;
2. Incorporate cyber awareness into DoD institutional culture; and
3. Sustain a ready cyber workforce.
The Department still has substantial challenges ahead of it to address the growing threats to DoD
and partner FRCS, but the policies and actions put into place in FY 2018 have created a credible
foundation and more apparent path forward for DoD to implement sound cybersecurity processes
and technologies to protect its FRCS.
31
(This page is intentionally left blank)
32
5. DoD’s Progress to Achieve Statutory Energy Management Requirements
Installation Energy Demand Overview
This section describes the scope of the Department’s installation energy demand in terms of cost
and consumption. DoD is the largest single energy-consuming entity in the United States, both
within the Federal Government and as compared to any single private-sector entity. DoD
operational and installation energy consumption represents approximately 80 percent of total
Federal energy consumption, more than sixteen times the total energy consumption of the next
closest Federal agency (the United States Postal Service).3
In FY 2018, DoD spent approximately $3.49 billion on installation energy, which included $3.40
billion to power, heat, and cool buildings; and $91 million to supply fuel to the fleet of NTVs.
DoD consumed 210,180 billion Btus (BBtus) of installation energy; 202,832 BBtus in buildings
(stationary combustion) and 7,348 BBtus in NTV fleet (mobile combustion). The Army was the
largest consumer of installation energy, followed by the Air Force, and DoN. Electricity and
natural gas accounted for 84 percent of DoD installation energy consumption. The remaining
portion of installation energy consumption included fuel oil, coal, steam, and liquefied petroleum
gas (LPG). DoD’s installation energy consumption mix mirrors that of the U.S. commercial sector,
where natural gas and electricity dominate the supply mix.
Energy Consumption
DoD captures installation energy consumption to help promote energy efficiency measures. Figure
3 illustrates recent historical trends in installation energy consumption by DoD Components across
all buildings.4 Installation energy consumption has increased slightly in recent years due to a shift
in focus from energy efficiency investments to energy resilience investments, which do not always
yield energy savings.
3 FEMP, Comprehensive Annual Energy Data and Sustainability Performance [online source] (Washington, D.C. April 26, 2018,
accessed April 3, 2019), available from
http://ctsedwweb.ee.doe.gov/Annual/Report/TotalSiteDeliveredEnergyUseInAllEndUseSectorsByFederalAgencyBillionBtu.aspx 4 Energy consumption does not include consumption from NTVs. The Department reported meeting the petroleum reduction and
alternative fuel goals in its FY 2015 Annual Energy Management Report to the congressional committees. It continues to
participate in efficiently reporting and providing petroleum and alternative fuel vehicle data to Congress and the Office of
Management through its Federal Fleet Report, located at the following: https://www.gsa.gov/policy-regulations/policy/vehicle-
management-policy/federal-fleet-report. It also reports and publishes progress to these goals through OMB, and the continued
progress to meet these goals can be viewed at https://www.sustainability.gov/.
33
Figure 3: Installation Energy Consumption by Military Service (Excluding NTV Consumption)
Renewable Energy
As DoD pursues renewable energy to advance its energy resilience, it also seeks to comply with
legal requirements to increase its renewable energy supply. The Department is subject to two
renewable energy goals: title 10 U.S.C. § 2911(g) and Section 203 of the Energy Policy Act
(EPAct) 2005 (42 U.S.C. § 15852(a)).
Title 10 U.S.C. § 2911(g) established a goal for DoD to produce or procure not less than 15 percent
by FY 20185 and 25 percent of the total quantity of facility energy it consumes within its facilities
by FY 2025 and each FY thereafter from renewable energy sources. DoD progress toward the title
10 U.S.C. § 2911(g) renewable energy goal in FY 2018 was 15.76 percent.
The EPAct 2005 goal considers total renewable electricity consumption as a percentage of total
facility electricity consumption, with the goal of 7.5 percent by 2013 and every FY thereafter.
Renewable electricity consumption subject to these requirements was 5.9 percent of DoD total
electricity consumption, falling short of the 7.5 percent goal. Figure 5 illustrates DoD progress
towards this goal since FY 2007.
5 This interim renewable energy goal was established as part of the Energy Performance Master Plan in the FY 2011 AEMRR. See
Appendix C for details on DoD energy goals.
-
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
FY16 FY17 FY18
Co
nsu
mp
tio
n (
BB
tu)
Army Air Force DoN Defense Agencies DoD
34
Figure 4: EPAct 2005 Renewable Energy Goal Attainment
The Department uses various authorities to increase the supply of distributed (on-site) and
renewable energy sources on its installations. DoD uses both appropriated funds and
non-Governmental (often referred to as ‘third-party’ or ‘alternative’) financing to pursue
renewable energy projects. DoD partners with private entities to enable the development of large-
scale renewable (or other distributed) energy projects and relies on congressional appropriations
to fund cost-effective, small-scale distributed generation projects. The main authorities used to
pursue third-party financing of renewable energy projects are Utility Service Contracts (USCs),
PPAs, and outgrants. Sections 2922(a) and 2667 of title 10 U.S.C. are not limited to renewable
energy sources and can also be used for non-renewable energy sources such as natural gas and
other fuel types. Section 2410(q) of title 10 U.S.C. is limited to renewable energy sources.
Army
The Army registered a total delivered energy consumption of 75.1 trillion Btus, costing
approximately $1.15 billion. Compared to FY 2017, the Army used approximately 4.6 percent
more energy and paid an additional $65.1 million (6.0 percent). The Army identifies and
implements cost-effective reduction measures that are targeted at contributing to mission
readiness. These measures reduce reliance on commercial energy supplies and improve overall
energy security of Army installations. The Army diversified its energy sources by installing an
additional 82.6 MW of renewable energy capacity in FY 2018, increasing the total renewable
energy capacity to 517.6 MW. The Army will continue to maximize readiness and mission
assurance in future years by building on these successes. In particular, the Army will conduct a
prioritized rollout of the IEWP to installations through FY 2021.
Funding
35
The Army leverages a variety of funding mechanisms to better enhance the energy security of its
installations. In FY 2018, the Army awarded six ESPC task orders and modifications with an
investment value of $99.8 million and three UESC projects worth $14.1 million, for a total of
$113.9 million. Accumulated savings are used to repay the third-party investments over the life
of the contracts. The combined Army ESPC and UESC investment since inception of the programs
is $2.9 billion.
Programs
ERCIP
The Army continues to focus ERCIP projects on energy resilience requirements for critical
missions. Because these types of projects are becoming increasingly complex, the Army
recognizes the need for a more structured planning and programming process. In FY 2018, the
Army piloted a planning charrette process that brings together all stakeholders to comprehensively
review and establish programming requirements prior to final submission of FY 2021 ERCIP
projects. The Army will employ this new process for all energy and water resilience projects.
UP
The Army uses UP to achieve significant energy efficiency and modernization upgrades to utility
infrastructure. UP is a cost-effective plan for addressing deferred maintenance backlogs. UP
leverages private sector financing and expertise, reduces risks, and transfers liability. Upgrading
infrastructure and operations to industry standards improves energy and water resilience and
reliability for Army missions. As of October 2018, 151 utility systems in the U.S. have been
privatized. Recapitalization through UP brings an average net reduction of 35 percent in gas usage.
In addition, when compared to the average use by Army-owned water systems, privatized water
systems use 16 percent less water on average.
Demand response (DR)
The Army released guidance and a handbook encouraging installation participation in DR
programs with their electric utility providers or through the DLA’s agreement with curtailment
service providers. By shifting electric use during peak hours, installations can lower their utility
costs and receive incentives. The Army evaluated market opportunities, identified specific
strategies, and conducted site-specific assessments to determine whether DR is a viable
opportunity to reduce and manage utility costs. In August 2018, the Army conducted demand
response training for Energy Managers in support of Army Energy and Water Reporting System
(AEWRS) data improvement to track participation and determine its financial impact on utility
costs. In FY 2018, there were 16 Army installations participating in DR programs with financial
benefits of $3.7 million credited toward the utility bills of the participating sites. DR benefits
reduced total Army electric costs in FY 2018 by 0.5 percent.
Army Metering Program
The Army’s 2014 Utilities Meter Policy required installation of advanced electric, natural gas,
water, and steam meters to capture at a minimum 60 percent of that commodity’s use with a goal
36
of 85 percent and automatically report to the Army’s Meter Data Management System (MDMS)
by 2020. While the Army continues to install electric meters, connectivity in reporting
consumption to MDMS remains a challenge. In FY 2018, electric meters were installed in more
than 34.2 percent of the total number of buildings identified as appropriate for metering. However,
only 17.5 percent of electricity consumption is currently reporting to the MDMS due to
connectivity and sustainment issues. The Army is implementing a revised execution plan to
improve availability of data for energy managers.
Renewable Energy
Renewable energy is an essential component of the Army’s energy security and resilience plan.
Assured access to reliable supplies of energy and the ability to protect and deliver sufficient energy
to meet operational requirements is an explicit goal of Directive 2017-07. Onsite energy
generation is a means to diversifying supply at installations and reducing reliance on commercial
energy grids. The Army pursues onsite renewable energy development for assuring access where
it is the most life cycle cost effective solution. Onsite renewable generation, when coupled with
energy storage, can provide Army installations with long-term energy resilience.
In FY 2018, the Army increased its renewable energy capacity for the fourth year in a row. The
Army added 82.6 MW of renewable energy capacity in FY 2018 through 39 new projects for total
517.6 MW. The total percentage of renewable electric energy eligible toward the EPAct 2005 goal
decreased from 8.4 percent in FY 2017 to 8.0 percent in FY 2018. Due to the rescission of EO
13693, ground source heat pumps (GSHP) are now classified as renewable energy non-electric.
The Army continues to employ a comprehensive approach to renewable energy, focusing on
supporting installation mission requirements. The Army’s cost-effective investments include
small-scale projects on rooftops and in parking areas, larger projects funded through ERCIP or
financed through ESPCs and UESCs, and utility-scale projects leveraging private financing
through available Federal and DOD authorities. In FY 2018, the Army added 12.8 MW of
renewable electricity capacity through a variety of programs that leverage private or third-party
financing, such as PPAs, ESPC/UESC, or GSA area-wide utility contracts. The Army’s Office of
Energy Initiatives (OEI) facilitates utility-scale projects by leveraging private equity. OEI
continues to look for private financing opportunities, focusing on the development of generation
projects that include energy storage and controls allowing continuing power support to
installations requirements in the event of an extended utility outage.
The Army leveraged third-party financing to install 4.7 MW of renewable electricity generation
through the Residential Communities Initiative as well as ERCIP and MILCON funds to add 2.0
MW of additional renewable electric generation. In FY 2019, the Army will continue its approach
to investing in renewable energy where it supports installation mission readiness and makes
economic sense using all available funding mechanisms.
37
DoN
Partnerships
The DoN continued to partner with industry to provide energy consumption savings and facility
improvements by leveraging third-party financing to preserve appropriated funds for use in support
of higher priority warfighting requirements for which alternative financing is not viable. In FY
2018, the DoN executed multiple long-term third-party financed contracts valued at $225 million
for infrastructure modernization including:
A Navy Region Europe-Africa-Southwest Asia $69 million ESPC for energy
improvements at Naval Air Station Sigonella, Naval Station Rota, and Naval Support
Activity Naples for improved HVAC, water, and lighting systems.
A Navy Region Far East $77 million ESPC for improvements to lighting, water, and sewer
systems, and boiler plant upgrades at Naval Air Station Atsugi, Naval Station Yokosuka,
and Naval Station Sasebo.
A UESC between Naval Submarine Base New London and Groton Utilities to provide
natural gas to H-Barracks for heating needs. The cost of repairing the steam line that fed
these barracks had put permanent repairs to these buildings heating system out of reach for
many years. By using third-party financing, the installation was able to use projected
savings to fund an alternative repair. The solution decentralized steam piping and provided
local heat using natural gas fired boilers. This effort saves over $200,000 per year, an
additional $6 million in avoided operations and maintenance expenses.
These contracts provide major infrastructure upgrades to the Navy and are financed by guaranteed
energy savings; infrastructure upgrades the Navy is unlikely to have obtained through traditional
project funding.
USMC steam decentralization projects at Camp Lejeune and MCRD San Diego have resulted in
significant energy efficiency savings at those installations. The $30 million MCRD San Diego
Project removed approximately 40 buildings from the steam distribution network through the
installation of new energy efficient space and domestic water-heating systems and infrastructure.
The $150 million Camp Lejeune steam decentralization project used multiple funding streams to
successfully replace five inefficient, outdated steam utility systems with 641 small high-efficiency
natural gas hot water condensing boilers.
In addition to infrastructure projects, strong energy conservation messaging continue to be
reinforced locally. Many Navy installations continued to successfully reduce energy consumption
by consistently emphasizing a culture of conservation with support through visible leadership
presence at the regional and base levels. Incentive programs that encourage individual efforts for
building and workplace energy reduction added to the impact of energy investments. Navy Region
Mid-Atlantic has a “Battle ‘E’ for Energy” program; in Europe installations compete in the “Fuel
for the Fleet” challenge, Naval Station Norfolk has an “Energy Reduction Derby” and Navy
38
Region Northwest has a tenant energy efficiency competition program where winners are
recognized throughout the year by the Installation Commanding Officer. Culture change remains
an important aspect of the DoN’s approach to energy management while efforts to identify, fund
or finance, and execute facility energy projects to lower energy demand and increase efficiency
are pursued in parallel.
Renewable Energy
In FY 2018, the Navy did not achieve the renewable electricity consumption goal of 7.5 percent
established in title 42 U.S.C. § 15852(a), consuming only 2.73 percent of installation electricity
from renewable sources. The USMC continues to exceed the 7.5 percent target, consuming 10.79
percent of electricity from renewable sources in FY 2018. This marks a marginal increase from
10.5 percent achieved in FY 2017.
The DoN continued to make progress against the renewable energy goal established in title 10
U.S.C. § 2911(g). In FY 2018, the Navy produced or procured 29.42 percent of renewable energy
relative to electricity consumed. This marks the first year the Navy has achieved the 25 percent
by FY 2025 goal. The USMC produced or procured 15.73 percent of renewable energy relative
to electricity consumed, an increase from 12.26 percent in FY 2017. Navy and USMC will
continue to produce and procure energy from renewable sources so long as such actions improve
installation energy resilience and mission readiness.
Installation Energy Managers (IEMs)
IEMs play a critical role in helping Navy shore installations effectively and efficiently manage
energy resources. In FY 2018 DoN reviewed the IEM’s roles and responsibilities; knowledge,
skills and abilities, and training requirements to adequately perform energy management duties.
As a result, the first Energy Manager Community Management Plan (CMP) was signed out to
ensure all energy managers are aligned to DoN expectations under the Energy Security
Framework and have a career path that promotes professionalism, education and training.
Additionally, DoN conducts four annual management assist visits (MAVs) to ensure minimum
expectations are being met, ensure vacancies are being filled with energy professionals and to
gain a better understanding of challenges throughout all regions and installations. Due to the
growth in complexity of the energy management field and the imposition of new energy security
requirements spanning various technical energy engineering disciplines, new hires into the
installation energy management role will be required to have more general knowledge and
considerable relevant professional experience in the areas of planning, project and program
management, energy reliability, energy resilience, energy efficiency, cybersecurity, and others
subjects that intertwine with energy management.
IEPs
Since August 2012, DoN has developed IEPs through the Shore Energy Implementation
Portfolio (SEIP) per established guidance in OPNAV 4100.5E (Shore Energy Management).
These plans enabled DoN to ensure compliance across all energy objectives. In FY 2018 DoN
39
initiated the development of an IEP template to facilitate the integration of cyber and other
energy requirements. The template was rolled out during the 2018 Energy Exchange and ensures
alignment with installation development plans (IDP). This effort highlights the importance of
energy managers working on the right focus areas across all business and support lines to include
installation planners, building operations and maintenance, utility personnel, cyber security
subject matter experts, and others. IEP briefs for the first 15 installations will be briefed to
CNIC, NAVFAC, and DoN in the fourth quarter of FY 2019.
UP
The Navy has revitalized its UP program pursuing a handful of pilot locations to test a new
process for pursuing or not pursuing privatization based on business case analysis of best value.
The goal of the pilots is to support increased reliability, increased resilience, leverage industry
expertise, increase efficiency with improved infrastructure, and minimize system lifetime total
ownership costs.
Advancing Navy Commodity Cost Reductions (ANCCR):
The Navy has developed a new utility cost analysis program called ANCCR that has developed a
strategy to reduce utility costs. The program was created to reduce projected utility commodity
costs, identify market and utility revenue opportunities, and optimize enterprise-wide business
processes.
Air Force
In FY 2018, energy consumption was 56,080 BBtu, a 1,075 BBtu increase from 55,005 BBtu in
FY 2017. Additionally, 67 of 184 installations saw a decrease in energy consumption and 80
installations saw a decrease in costs. Harsh winter conditions during the winter of 2018 contributed
to energy consumption increases, especially in the northeastern U.S.
A review of information received from Air Force bases reveal a variety of strategies used to reduce
energy consumption. Most often mentioned were continued use of Facility Sustainment,
Restoration & Modernization (FSRM), and ERCIP funds along with ESPC and UESC third-party
financing. In particular, funds were primarily used to convert to HEL and replace inefficient
HVAC systems with newer more efficient systems. Various awareness programs continue to
educate and motivate personnel across installations to contribute to energy reductions.
A review of information received from installations where consumption increased indicated more
extreme summer and winter conditions. In particular, many bases located in the northeast U.S.
region reported harsher winter conditions than previous years. New mission construction or
increased mission operations tempo were also contributing factors in several instances. The
national trend of low energy costs continues to affect the ability to produce effective projects
justified on life-cycle costs.
40
Renewable Energy
In FY 2018, 6.8 percent of the electrical energy used by the Air Force was produced from
renewable sources. This represents an increase of 7,073 MWh from the 6.7 percent in FY 2017,
and is below the EPAct 2005 goal of 7.5 percent. In addition, the Air Force performance toward
the title 10 U.S.C. § 2911(g) goal was 6.9 percent for both electric and non-electric energy used in
FY 2018.
Major operational renewable energy projects in FY 2018 included 14.2 MW and 19 MW solar PV
arrays using a PPA at Nellis AFB, NV; a 28.2 MW solar PV array at Vandenberg AFB, CA using
PPA mechanism; a 16.4 MW PPA solar PV array at Davis Monthan AFB, AZ using an indefinite
term FAR Part 41 contract mechanism; a 6 MW PPA solar PV array at US Air Force Academy,
CO; and a 3 MW PPA solar PV array at Edwards AFB, CA. Larger government funded (ERCIP)
operational renewable projects include a 3.4 MW wind project at Cape Cod AFS, MA and a 1 MW
solar PV array project at Buckley AFB, CO. Other third-party funded operational renewable
energy projects include a 2.3 MW landfill gas generation plant at Hill AFB, UT; a 7 MW landfill
gas generation plant at Joint Base Eielson-Richardson (JBER)-Richardson, AK; and EUL projects
of a 10 MW solar PV array at Luke AFB, AZ; a 30 MW solar PV array at Eglin AFB, FL; and a
20 MW solar PV array at AF Plant 42, Palmdale, CA.
GSHP projects within the Air Force have a total 11,741 tons of operating capacity, which is
equivalent to approximately 6,493 MWh of resilient renewable energy. GSHP projects were
executed using various funding sources including ESPC, UESC, and ERCIP.
Mountain Home AFB, ID will continue to develop its geothermal resource by initiating an
Environmental Assessment and establishing power requirements for mission critical facilities in
support of a resilient baseline geothermal power plant, and will be the pilot for other Air Force
geothermal initiatives.
The Air Force has long recognized the significant role that the MILCON program plays in
achieving Federal energy mandates. Despite FY 2018 fiscal constraints, the Air Force is
incorporating renewable energy projects in MILCON building designs.
Renewable Energy Plans
The Air Force renewable energy use was 6.8 percent of its total electrical energy consumption
through a mixture of renewable on-base projects and purchased commercial renewable supply.
The Air Force renewable energy plan focuses on the development of resilient, cost effective on-
base electric and non-electric energy projects that support the mission. The renewable market will
continue to be constrained for the foreseeable future by prevailing utility commodity costs and the
availability of economic incentives, such as federal, state, and local tax incentives.
In FY 2019, AFCEC plans to execute EULs for a 13 MW solar PV project at Joint Base McGuire-
Dix-Lakehurst (JBMDL) - Lakehurst, NJ and a 17 MW solar PV project at JBMDL - Dix, NJ.
41
Direct Air Force renewable project funding through ERCIP or other Air Force capital sources is
rarely cost-effective when compared to commercial utility rates. This is primarily because the Air
Force cannot benefit from tax rebates and incentives. As a result, renewable energy and resilience
capabilities have started to be pursued through third party financed arrangements such as ESPCs
and UESCs.
The Air Force has moved toward purchasing renewable power from third-party financed projects
developed on bases as the primary strategy to reduce cost and improve base resilience. The
developer can recoup the construction investment by the firm sale of power and by taking
advantage of tax credits. Although the government cannot benefit from these financial
mechanisms on Air Force owned property, it does benefit by purchasing lower-cost power and
gaining dedicated renewable resilience electric supply on-base.
Under EPAct 2005 regulation, a third-party developed on-base renewable project that sells the
RECs will not be considered renewable, and thus not count toward the Air Force renewable energy
goals. Also, the bonus credit will be lost for on-base renewable generation. A purchase of a lower-
cost replacement REC will reinstate the renewable status of the project, as well as the bonus credit.
Therefore, purchasing replacement RECs will be a part of the Air Force strategy to meet the
aggressive statutory renewable goals, but depending on the specific situation, RECs may be
included with the project. Nevertheless, RECs remain a useful contingency tool in reaching long-
term legislative mandated targets.
The Air Force seeks opportunities to incorporate renewable energy and resilience on its
installations. Previous studies considered conventional renewable energy opportunities, such as
wind, solar, and biomass, but also accounted for passive renewable energy alternatives such as
solar walls, solar water heating, and GSHPs. In FY 2018, the Air Force had approximately 355
renewable energy projects on 123 sites, either in operation or under construction. Planned
renewable energy projects are actively being pursued.
Defense Agencies
In FY 2018, the Defense Agencies continued to pursue opportunities to reduce installation energy
consumption and increase renewable energy consumption. Some highlights of successes are
included below:
DeCA
DeCA has coordinated with Installations when they have been installing renewable systems
and some Installations have used DeCA facilities to install their renewable systems.
DFAS
42
DFAS Rome and Limestone had a 37.2 percent energy consumption reduction from the
baseline. Both sites invested in new boiler, heat pump, and chiller systems over the past 4
years.
NRO
The NRO continued to implement many energy savings measures in FY 2018. Across the
enterprise these measures included data center optimization and updating corridor,
cafeteria, and restroom lighting to LED.
The NRO increased use of advanced metering to improve energy management,
aggressively pursued energy conservation improvements that could be made to facilities
during refurbishment or recapitalization, conducted outreach programs at sites to
encourage energy efficient behaviors, and audited personal appliance use to quantify
energy efficient alternatives.
DIA
DIA continues to find low-cost/high-impact energy reduction improvements and prioritizes
initiatives based on mission impact. There has been positive mission impact from
completed projects using ERCIP funding.
Projects such as replacing starters with variable frequency drives (VFDs) and fluorescent
lighting with LEDs have reduced energy consumption.
Central plant optimization has reduced DIA energy consumption by 32 percent while
maintaining mission requirements. The investment was paid back in only 3.8 years.
A-1
List of Energy Acronyms
Acronym Definition
AEMRR Annual Energy Management and Resilience Report
AEWRS Army Energy and Water Reporting System
AFB Air Force Base
AFCEC Air Force Civil Engineer Center
AFIMSC Air Force Installation and Mission Support Center
AFV Alternative Fuel Vehicle
ANGB Air National Guard Base
ARNG Army National Guard
ASA(IE&E) Assistant Secretary of the Army for Installations, Energy and Environment
ASD(Sustainment) Assistant Secretary of Defense for Sustainment
ASD(EI&E) Assistant Secretary of Defense for Energy, Installations and Environment
ASN(EI&E) Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Energy, Installations and Environment
ASRA Army Strategic Readiness Assessment
BBtu Billion British Thermal Units
BOS Base Operations Support
Btu British Thermal Unit
CMS Critical Mission Sustainment
CNG Compressed Natural Gas
CNIC Commander, Navy Installations Command
CNIC N4 Commander, Navy Installations Command Facilities and Environmental Department
CNIC N441 Commander, Navy Installations Command Energy and Utilities Branch
CNO Office of the Chief of Naval Operations
CO2e Carbon Dioxide Equivalent
COMMCICOM Commander Marine Corps Installations Command
CONUS Contiguous United States
CS Control Systems
CY Calendar Year
DASA(IE&E) Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for Installations, Energy, and Environment
DASN(I&F) Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Installations & Facilities
DCI Defense Critical Infrastructure
DC I&L Deputy Commandant for Installations and Logistics
DCMA Defense Contract Management Agency
DeCA Defense Commissary Agency
DEPSECDEF Deputy Secretary of Defense
DERB Defense Energy Resilience Bank
DFAS Defense Finance and Accounting Service
DIA Defense Intelligence Agency
A-2
Acronym Definition
DLA Defense Logistics Agency
DoD Department of Defense
DoDI Department of Defense Instruction
DOE Department of Energy
DoN Department of the Navy
DUSD(I&E) Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Installations and Environment)
E85 85 percent ethanol fuel
ECIP Energy Conservation and Investment Program
EIA Energy Information Administration
EISA 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007
EMIG Energy Mission Integration Group
EO Executive Order
EPAct 2005 Energy Policy Act of 2005
ERA Tool Energy Resilience Assessment Tool
ERCIP Energy Resilience Conservation and Investment Program
ERRE Energy Resilience Readiness Exercise
ER TTX Energy Resilience Tabletop Exercise
ES2 Energy Security and Sustainability
ESCO Energy Service Company
ESPC Energy Savings Performance Contract
ESTCP Environmental Security Technology Certification Program
EUL Enhanced Use Lease
EV Electric Vehicle
FRCS Facility-Related Control Systems
FY Fiscal Year
GGE Gallons of Gasoline Equivalent
GHG Greenhouse Gas
GSA General Services Administration
GSF Gross Square Foot
GSHP Ground Source Heat Pump
HQ Headquarters
HQ USAF Headquarters Air Force
HVAC Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning
IC Intelligence Community
IEP Installation Energy Plan
IEWP Army Installation Energy and Water Plan
ILA Industrial, Landscaping, and Agriculture
IOC Initial Operational Capability
ISR-MC Army Installation Status Report – Mission Capacity
IT Information Technology
A-3
Acronym Definition
JCS Joint Chiefs of Staff
KW Kilowatt, 1 thousand Watts
LPG Liquefied Petroleum Gas
MAJCOMS Major Commands
MCAGCC Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center
MCAS Marine Corps Air Station
MCICOM Marine Corps Installations Command
MCICOM GF Marine Corps Installations Command, Director Facilities
MCICOM GF-1 Marine Corps Installations Command, Energy and Facilities Operations Section
MCRD Marine Corps Recruit Depot
MDA Missile Defense Agency
MDMS Meter Data Management System
MFGI Mobilization Force Generation Installation
MGal Million Gallons
MILCON Military Construction
MIT-LL Massachusetts Institute of Technology – Lincoln Laboratory
MMBtu Million British Thermal Units
MR&R Maintenance, Repair, and Replacement
MSW Municipal Solid Waste
MW Megawatt, 1 million Watts
MWh Megawatt-Hour, 1 million Watt-hours
NAS Naval Air Station
NAVFAC Naval Facilities Engineering Command
NDAA National Defense Authorization Act
NDS National Defense Strategy
NECPA National Energy Conservation Policy Act
NGA National Geospatial Intelligence Agency
NRO National Reconnaissance Office
NSA National Security Agency
NSA Naval Supply Activity
NTV Non-Tactical Vehicle
OM&T Operations, Maintenance and Testing
OACSIM Office of the Assistant Chief of Staff for Installation Management
OASD(Sustainment) Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Sustainment
OCONUS Outside Continental United States
ODASD(Energy) Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Energy
ODASD(DC&MA) Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Defense Continuity and
Mission Assurance
OEA Air Force Office of Energy Assurance
OPNAV-N46 CNO Shore Installation Management Division
OSD Office of the Secretary of Defense
A-4
Acronym Definition
OT Operational Technology
PEV Plug-in Electric Vehicle
PHI Protected Health Information
PII Personally Identifiable Information
PIT Platform Information Technology
PPA Power Purchase Agreement
PPP Power Projection Platform
PV Photovoltaic
REC Renewable Energy Credit
SAF/IE Assistant Secretary of the Air Force (Installations, Environment & Energy)
SAF/IEE Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Air Force Environment, Safety and Infrastructure
SAIDI System Average Interruption Duration Index
SAIFI System Average Interruption Frequency Index
SCADA Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition
SECDEF Secretary of Defense
SESC Senior Energy and Sustainability Council
SIR Savings to Investment Ratio
SMR Small Modular Reactor
SRM Sustainment, Restoration, and Modernization
SSPP Strategic Sustainability Performance Plan
SYSCOMS Navy Systems Commands
UESC Utility Energy Service Contract
UFC Unified Facilities Criteria
UP Utilities Privatization
U.S. United States
U.S.C United States Code
USAG United States Army Garrison
USC Utility Service Contract
USD(A&S) Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment
USMC United States Marine Corps
USORT Utility System Outage Report Tracker
VAM Vehicle Allocation Methodology
VFD Variable Frequency Drive
WHS Washington Headquarters Service
B-1
Compliance Matrix
Subsection
/
Paragraph
Description FY 2018 AEMRR
Chapter / Appendix
Page
Number
10 U.S.C.
§ 2925
(a)
Annual Report Related to Installations Energy
Management and Mission Assurance — Not
later than 120 days after the end of each fiscal
year, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to
the congressional defense committees an
installation energy report detailing the
fulfillment during that fiscal year of the energy
performance goals for the Department of
Defense under section 2911 of this title,
including progress on energy resilience at
military installations according to metrics
developed by the Secretary. Each report shall
contain the following:
(a)(1)
A description of the progress made to achieve
the goals of the Energy Policy Act of 2005
(Public Law 109–58), section 2911(g) of this
title, section 553 of the National Energy
Conservation Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 8259b), the
Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007
(Public Law 110–140), and the energy
performance goals for the Department of
Defense during the preceding fiscal year,
including progress on energy resilience at
military installations according to metrics
developed by the Secretary.
3, 5 10-27,
32-42
(a)(2)
A description of the energy savings, return on
investment, and enhancements to installation
mission assurance realized by the fulfillment of
the goals described in paragraph (1).
3, 5 10-27,
32-42
(a)(3)
Details of all utility outages impacting energy
resilience at military installations (excluding
planned outages for maintenance reasons),
whether caused by on- or off-installation
disruptions, including the total number and
location of outage, the duration of the outage,
the financial impact of the outage, whether or
not the mission was impacted, the downtimes
(in minutes or hours) these missions can afford
based on their mission requirements and risk
tolerances, the responsible authority managing
the utility, and measure taken to mitigate the
outage by the responsible authority.
3
18, 20-
21, 24,
26-27
B-2
Subsection
/
Paragraph
Description FY 2018 AEMRR
Chapter / Appendix
Page
Number
(a)(4)
Details of a military installation’s total energy
requirements and critical energy requirements
(including critical energy loads in megawatts
and the associated downtime tolerances for
critical energy loads), and the current energy
resilience and emergency backup systems
servicing critical energy requirements,
including, at a minimum—
(A) energy resilience and emergency backup
system power requirements;
(B) the critical missions, facility, or facilities
serviced;
(C) system service life;
(D) capital, operations, maintenance, and testing
costs; and
(E) other information the Secretary determines
necessary.
3 11
10 U.S.C.
§ 2911
(c)(1)
The Secretary of Defense shall submit to the
congressional defense committees the energy
performance goals for the Department of
Defense regarding transportation systems,
support systems, utilities, and infrastructure and
facilities.
Appendix C C-2
(c)(3)
The Secretary of Defense shall include the
energy security and resilience goals of the
Department of Defense in the installation
energy report submitted under section 2925(a)
of this title for fiscal year 2018 and every fiscal
year thereafter. In the development of energy
security and resilience goals, the Department of
Defense shall conform with the definitions of
energy security and resilience under this title.
The report shall include the amount of critical
energy load, together with the level of
availability and reliability by fiscal year the
Department of Defense deems necessary to
achieve energy security and resilience.
Appendix C C-2
(d)(1)
The Secretary of Defense shall develop a
comprehensive master plan for the achievement
of the energy performance goals of the
Department of Defense, as set forth in laws,
executive orders, and Department of Defense
policies.
Appendix C C-1-C-2
10 U.S.C.
§ 2688 (g)(4)
The Secretary of Defense, in consultation with
the Secretaries of the military departments, shall
include in the installation energy report
submitted under section 2925(a) of this title a
description of progress in meeting energy
resilience metrics for all conveyance contracts
entered into pursuant to this section.
3 13
B-3
Subsection
/
Paragraph
Description FY 2018 AEMRR
Chapter / Appendix
Page
Number
SASC
Report
115-262
The Senate Armed Services Committee “directs
the Secretary of Defense to work with the
scretaries of the military departments, along
with the defense agencies, to conduct an
investigation for a central office to accelerate
energy resilience project development and
implementation. The Secretary should consider
equitable representation from the military
departments and defense agencies during the
review, and consult with the services and
defense agencies when providing a
recommendation. The review should include, at
a minimum, the following: (1) A review of
lessons learned from existing service execution
offices such as the Navy’s Resilient Energy
Program Office, the Army’s Office of Energy
Initiatives, and the Air Force’s Office of Energy
Assurance; (2) Personnel skills, manning, and
resources needed to establish the office; (3) The
appropriate organizational reporting structure of
such an office; (3) Strategy, mission, and
performance goals the office would pursue (to
include the scope of projects considered and
funding strategy considerations); (5)
Recruitment, retention, and training strategy;
and (6) Legislative authorities and other
recommendation to consider for th
establishment of an office to accelerate energy
resilience project development.
Appendix E E-1
SAC-M
Report
115-269
The Committee directs the Secretary to provide a
report within 180 days of enactment of this act on
the Deaprtment’s efforts to address risks to
critical energy systems outsdie of DoD property.
Appendix F F-1
Section
2880, P.L.
115-91,
NDAA of
FY 2018
Not later than December 31, 2021, the Secretary
of Defense shall certify to the congressional
defense committees whether or not at United
States military installations in Europe the
Department of Defense—
(1) has taken significant steps to minimize to
the extent practicable the dependency on energy
sourced inside the Russian Federation at such
installations; and
(2) has the ability to sustain mission critical
operations during an energy supply disruption.
Appendix G G-1
C-1
Energy Performance Master Plan
DoD Energy Performance Master Plan
Introduction
The Energy Performance Master Plan
(hereafter referred to as Master Plan)
aligns investments to installation energy
objectives, enables consistent
Department-wide decision-making, and
establishes metrics to evaluate DoD’s
progress against installation energy
performance goals. The Master Plan was established and reported in the FY 2011 AEMRR. The
goals outlined in the Master Plan align with the Department’s facility energy strategy designed to
reduce energy costs and improve the energy resilience of fixed installations. The key elements of
the installation energy strategy are (Figure C-1):
Maximize Efficient Energy Use
Expand Supply for Mission Assurance
Enhance Energy Resilience
In FY 2011, the then Office of the Deputy Under
Secretary of Defense for Installations and
Environment (ODUSD(I&E)) developed its first
Master Plan with input from DoD Components.
OASD(S) is in the process of updating the Master
Plan to meet the emerging energy requirements
and to address energy security challenges
specified in the Secretary of Defense’s NDS
released in February 2018. The Department’s
energy performance goals and Master Plan will
be updated and reported annually in the AEMRR.
DoD Components are required to submit their
facility energy investment projections for the Future Years Defense Program (FYDP) as part of
their Master Plan submittal. The DoD Components’ submissions to the President Budget,
investment profile, energy benefit analyses, and narratives will be the basis for any updates of the
Master Plan within the AEMRR.
Installation energy is the energy necessary to support the
functions of over 500 fixed installations on nearly 29 million
acres of land within the United States and internationally.
This energy is distinct from operational energy, which
consists largely of mobility fuel that is used by operational
aircraft, ships, and tanks, as well as generators at forward
operating bases.
Figure C-1: Installation Energy Approach
C-2
Energy Performance Goals
The DoD energy goals in Tables C-1 and C-2 are set forth by title 42 U.S.C. § 15852(a) and title
10 U.S.C. § 2911(g). These goals focus on renewable energy use. Although energy efficiency is
no longer a top priority, the Department remains committed to maximizing the efficient use of
energy to free up resources for higher priorities. As the DoD deploys new weapon systems and
technology to increase military readiness and lethality as directed in the NDS, a rise in energy
demand could occur and subsequently reduce energy efficiency results. With respect to renewable
energy, the DoD strives to optimize the use of on-site distributed energy resources from all sources
of energy generation to directly improve mission assurance. The type of source is determined by
local availability, market conditions, a business case, or mission requirements. As such, the
Department is committed to optimizing the effective and efficient use of generating sources.
As of this writing, there are no discreet statutory goals related to energy resilience. Such goals
have been requested, and once established, DoD will add these goals into this Energy Performance
Master Plan submission. Title 10 U.S.C. § 2911(c)(3) requires DoD to include installation energy
security and resilience goals in this report and subsequent AEMRRs. The Department is in the
process of establishing metrics to measure energy resilience across the Services in terms of energy
availability for critical loads. Once energy resilience metrics are established, the Department will
develop an annual energy resilience goal for Services to target.
Table C-1: DoD Energy Performance Goals
Goal Description Uniform Measure Method of Measurement Metric
Consume More Electric
Energy From Renewable
Sources
42 U.S.C. § 15852(a)
Increase
consumption of
renewable energy
Installation
renewable energy
consumption
Total renewable electricity
consumption as a percentage
of total facility electricity
consumption.
MWH
Produce Or Procure
More Energy From
Renewable Sources
10 U.S.C. § 2911(g)
Increase deployment
of on-base
renewable energy to
improve energy
resilience.
Electric and non-
electric renewable
energy production
and procurement.
Electric and non-electric
renewable energy produced
or procured compared to total
facility electricity
consumption.
MWH
Table C-2: Energy Performance Targets
Target FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20 FY25
Consume More
Renewable Energy +5% +5% +7.5% +7.5% +7.5% +7.5% +7.5% +7.5% +7.5% +7.5% +7.5%
Produce/Procure
More Renewable
Energy 1
- - - - - - - +15% - - +25%
1FY 2018 interim target required by title 10 U.S.C. § 2911(g)(2)
DoD will update this Master Plan periodically to address new information, changes in energy
performance goals, and to identify the investments necessary to achieve those goals. DoD’s
commitment to the energy performance goals also includes compliance with energy statutes,
regulations, and EOs. Accordingly, the energy performance goals continue to advance the DoD
facility energy mission, vision, and strategy.
D-1
DoD Energy Performance Summary
Renewable Electric Energy
Requirement
per title 42 U.S.C. 15852(a)
Renewable
Electricity
Use (MWH)
Total
Electricity
Use (MWH)
Percentage of
Facility
Electric Use
EPAct 2005
Requirement
Eligible renewable electricity use as a
percentage of total electricity use 1,775,346.1 30,180,569.1 5.9% 7.5%
Produce or Procure More Energy
From Renewable Sources per title 10
U.S.C. 2911(g)
Renewable Energy
Produced/Procured
(MWH)
Total
Electricity
Use (MWH)
Percentage
of Facility
Electric Use
Compliance
Target by
2025
Total renewable energy (electric & non-
electric) produced or procured as a
percentage of total facility electricity
consumption
4,756,540.6 30,180,569.1 15.76% 25.0%
Metering
Goals
Cumulative # of
Buildings
Metered For
Electricity
Cumulative % of
Appropriate
Buildings
Metered for
Electricity
Cumulative # of
Buildings
Metered for
Natural Gas
Cumulative % of
Appropriate
Buildings Metered
for Natural Gas
Cumulative #
of Buildings
Metered for
Steam
Cumulative % of
Appropriate
Buildings
Metered for
Steam
Standard
Meters in
FY 2018 15,833 27.9% 6,843 28.5% 892 26.5%
Advanced
Meters in
FY 2018 27,734 48.9% 4,555 19.0% 719 21.4%
Total
Meters in
FY 2018 43,567 76.7% 11,398 47.5% 1,611 47.9%
Federal Building Energy Efficiency Standards
Percent of New
Building
Designs
Compliance
Target
Percent of new building designs started since beginning in FY 2007 that are
30 percent more energy efficient than relevant code, where life-cycle cost
effective (including 8/2012 standards)
97.0% 100.0%
Investments in Energy Management
Sources of Investment Investment Value (Thou. $) Anticipated Annual Savings
(MMBtus)
Direct obligations for facility energy efficiency
improvements $585,910.8 1,807,673.5
Investment value of ESPC Task/Delivery
Orders awarded in fiscal year $572,057.7 895,882.3
Investment value of UESC Task/Delivery
Orders awarded in fiscal year $49,897.3 212,295.0
TOTAL $1,207,865.9 2,915,850.8
Percent
Total Investment as a percentage of total facility energy cost 35.6%
Financed (ESPC/UESC) investment as a percentage of total facility energy costs 18.3%
D-2
Total Installation Energy Consumption and Cost
Energy Type BBtus Cost (thou.)
Electricity 100,603.1 2,498,832.2
Fuel Oil 13,519.8 235,889.9
Natural Gas 70,370.9 433,053.5
LPG 912.6 14,408.1
Coal 6,218.9 30,425.3
Steam 4,351.6 111,438.4
Other 479.2 4,999.9 Renewable
Electric, On-site 2,585.2 37,886.2
Renewable
Electric Off-Site 1,018.9 13,761.0
Renewable,
Other, On-Site 2,313.6 5,440.0
Renewable, Off-
Site Green
Energy
Purchases
458.2 10,928.8
TOTAL 202,832.0 3,397,063.3
E-1
Senate Report 115-262, page 150, accompanying S. 2987, the John S. McCain
National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2019
Establishment of the energy resilience project development and implementation office
The John S. McCain NDAA displays an understanding of the energy resilience work being done
in the defense energy community. The document supports the diverse approaches being taken to
enhance energy resilience including technologies, strategies, and financing mechanisms. Financed
projects are named in particular as a critical tool for the department’s future energy resilience
goals. Developing further upon the work being done, the NDAA directs the Secretary of Defense
to work to accelerate energy resilience portfolios across the enterprise.
The Senate Armed Services Committee “directs the Secretary of Defense to work with the
secretaries of the military departments, along with the defense agencies, to conduct an
investigation for a central office to accelerate energy resilience project development and
implementation. The Secretary should consider equitable representation from the military
departments and defense agencies during the review and consult with the services and defense
agencies when providing a recommendation. The review should include, at a minimum, the
following: (1) A review of lessons learned from existing service execution offices such as the
Navy’s Resilient Energy Program Office, the Army’s Office of Energy Initiatives, and the Air
Force’s Office of Energy Assurance; (2) Personnel skills, manning, and resources needed to
establish the office; (3) The appropriate organizational reporting structure of such an office; (4)
Strategy, mission, and performance goals the office would pursue (to include the scope of projects
considered and funding strategy considerations); (5) Recruitment, retention, and training strategy;
and (6) Legislative authorities and other recommendation to consider for the establishment of an
office to accelerate energy resilience project development.”
The OSD plans to closely coordinate with ASN(EI&E), Army OEI, and Air Force OEA to
coordinate and successfully execute each of the steps in the review process. OSD understands that
these offices actively track energy resilience projects, policies, and needs for each service branch
and is well aware of both current and planned work. Leveraging lessons learned from these offices
extends to steps two through six and OSD plans to use these lessons to help establish the energy
resilience project development and implementation office.
OSD wants to emphasize the value of alternatively financed projects in particular as a critical tool
for the success of any energy resilience office. As the NDAA alludes, not only is the budget-
neutral aspect of many of these projects valuable, but the partnerships with other private and public
institutions allows for the exchange of knowledge and best practices, strengthening the resilience
capabilities of all parties. Specifically, OSD is working to better value resilience in more
conventional, monetary terms, to facilitate its inclusion in project valuation and planning.
Working with industry partners to finance resilience by offsetting the costs with more conventional
energy savings has seen success to date, but future projects will benefit by viewing resilience not
as an expense but as more of an investment.
F-1
Senate Report 115-269, page 8, accompanying S. 3024, the Military
Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill, 2019
Critical energy systems outside DoD property
The Committee directs the Secretary to provide a report within 180 days of enactment of this act
on the Department’s efforts to address risks to critical energy systems outside of DoD property. It
is anticipated that this report will emphasize that OSD views inside/outside the fence energy
resilience concerns not as discrete, but as very much interrelated concerns. This perspective is
based on an understanding that military installations are, themselves, a resource for surrounding
communities and that modern energy systems are inherently large, complex, and connected.
Developing solutions to energy resilience problems is inherently easier for DoD organizations
when working on owned property or space, but that does mean that an “islanding” project is also
an isolated one. Whether as a hub for emergency response operations, as a shelter, or as an
emergency source of electricity, ensuring military buildings are energy resilient against energy
disruptions provides a service to the surrounding community as well. Military installations
providing services to the community is not a new concept and islanding capability development
only serves to strengthen the installation’s ability to continue to provide these services throughout
an emergency.
Installation islanding capabilities come in a variety of scopes, but all require some form of energy
generation and/or storage. Modern islanding projects are feasible as they do not stand by until
there is an outage, but rather operate continuously, providing a variety of ancillary services to the
grid including demand reduction, peak shaving, and frequency stabilization among others. All of
these capabilities provide energy resilience to the utility grid, freeing up or even improving the
quality of electricity for others connected to those power lines. Utilities are increasingly willing
to pay for these ancillary grid services, strengthening the case for and value of islanding projects.
OSD understands energy resilience is a concern for the commercial energy grid and that it can play
a significant role in addressing this problem. DoD has developed relationships with utilities and
other organizations and can leverage these relationships to develop energy resilience solutions that
benefit both military installations and the surrounding communities. Developing and
incorporating energy resilience requirements into project design and even utility contracts is an
ongoing line of effort which is promising in its ability to spur action and investment on the part of
the utility to maintain and upgrade infrastructure to improve energy resilience. Increasing
awareness of energy resilience throughout the DoD continues to elevate these engagements with
utilities and strengthen the Department’s ability to draft impactful requirements. Continuing to
develop best practices and policy in this area promises to enhance energy resilience across the
country.
G-1
Section 2880 of the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2018 (P.L. 115-91)
Energy security for military installations in Europe
Not later than December 31, 2021, the Secretary of Defense shall certify to the congressional
defense committees whether or not at United States military installations in Europe the Department
of Defense—
(1) has taken significant steps to minimize to the extent practicable the dependency on energy
sourced inside the Russian Federation at such installations; and
(2) has the ability to sustain mission critical operations during an energy supply disruption.
In concert with other energy efficiency and resilience initiatives, DoD is well positioned to address
this concern and to minimize energy sourced from the Russian Federation. An overall reduction
in energy usage through efficiency measures will allow the DoD to reduce reliance on all energy
sources and, as such, free up capacity from preferred sources which can be prioritized over Russia.
Additionally, since energy resilience projects focus on sustaining critical mission operations
during a disruption, installing local distributed energy generation sources is a common part of the
solution. New local distributed energy generation sources can reduce reliance on outside energy
sources and could potentially “island” the installation’s electrical grid.
H-1
Energy Consumption by Installation
Component Installation Name State / Country Gross Square Footage
(‘000 SF)
Total Site Delivered
Energy (BBtu)
AIR FORCE ABRAHAM LINCOLN CAPITAL AIRPORT ILLINOIS 332 21.5
AIR FORCE AIR NATIONAL GUARD READINESS CENTER
(ANGRC) MARYLAND 348 21.1
AIR FORCE ALPENA COUNTY REGIONAL AIRPORT MICHIGAN 563 49.3
AIR FORCE ALTUS AIR FORCE BASE OKLAHOMA 2,514 290.7
AIR FORCE ANDERSEN AIR FORCE BASE GUAM 52 2.9
AIR FORCE JOINT BASE ANDREWS-NAVAL AIR FACILITY
WASHINGTON MARYLAND 498 38.7
AIR FORCE ARNOLD AIR STATION TENNESSEE 2,869 1,498.8
AIR FORCE ATLANTIC CITY INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT NEW JERSEY 495 43.9
AIR FORCE AVIANO AIR BASE ITALY 4,262 308.5
AIR FORCE BANGOR INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT (ANG) MAINE 512 51.5
AIR FORCE BARKSDALE AIR FORCE BASE LOUISIANA 5,163 465.8
AIR FORCE BARNES MUNICIPAL AIRPORT ANG MASSACHUSETTS 513 41.8
AIR FORCE BEALE AIR FORCE BASE CALIFORNIA 3,208 356.8
AIR FORCE BIRMINGHAM INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT ALABAMA 379 30.1
AIR FORCE BOISE AIR TERMINAL (ANG) IDAHO 566 39.9
AIR FORCE BRADLEY INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT (ANG) CONNECTICUT 441 46.2
AIR FORCE BUCKLEY AIR FORCE BASE COLORADO 1,684 149.0
AIR FORCE BUCKLEY AIR FORCE BASE COLORADO 588 45.0
AIR FORCE BURLINGTON INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT (ANG) VERMONT 479 22.1
AIR FORCE CAMP BLANDING MILITARY RESERVATION (ANG) FLORIDA 124 3.9
AIR FORCE CAMP MURRAY ANG STATION WASHINGTON 235 12.7
AIR FORCE CAMP PENDLETON MILITARY RESERVATION(ANG) VIRGINIA 124 4.4
AIR FORCE CAMP PERRY ANG STATION OHIO 182 4.7
H-2
Component Installation Name State / Country Gross Square Footage
(‘000 SF)
Total Site Delivered
Energy (BBtu)
AIR FORCE CANNON AIR FORCE BASE NEW MEXICO 3,276 439.2
AIR FORCE CHANNEL ISLANDS ANG STATION CALIFORNIA 345 16.5
AIR FORCE CHARLOTTE/DOUGLAS INT AIRPORT (ANG) NORTH CAROLINA 620 26.7
AIR FORCE CHEYENNE REGIONAL AIRPORT WYOMING 432 41.7
AIR FORCE COLUMBUS AIR FORCE BASE MISSISSIPPI 1,579 146.9
AIR FORCE DANE COUNTY REGIONAL AIRPORT-TRUAX FIELD WISCONSIN 475 38.4
AIR FORCE DAVIS-MONTHAN AIR FORCE BASE ARIZONA 4,926 348.4
AIR FORCE DES MOINES INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT ANG IOWA 417 34.9
AIR FORCE DOBBINS AIR RESERVE BASE GEORGIA 1,094 102.4
AIR FORCE DOVER AIR FORCE BASE DELAWARE 3,823 446.6
AIR FORCE DULUTH INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT (ANG) MINNESOTA 485 59.4
AIR FORCE DYESS AIR FORCE BASE TEXAS 3,459 302.3
AIR FORCE EARECKSON AIR STATION ALASKA 2,916 680.6
AIR FORCE EDWARDS AIR FORCE BASE CALIFORNIA 7,192 782.2
AIR FORCE EGLIN AIR FORCE BASE FLORIDA 11,700 1,189.4
AIR FORCE EIELSON AIR FORCE BASE ALASKA 299 25.3
AIR FORCE EIELSON AIR FORCE BASE ALASKA 4,018 2,073.4
AIR FORCE ELLINGTON FIELD TEXAS 493 41.7
AIR FORCE ELLSWORTH AIR FORCE BASE SOUTH DAKOTA 4,044 453.8
AIR FORCE EWVRA SHEPHERD FIELD ANG WEST VIRGINIA 652 59.4
AIR FORCE FAIRCHILD AIR FORCE BASE WASHINGTON 4,011 381.2
AIR FORCE FAIRCHILD AIR FORCE BASE WASHINGTON 362 40.1
AIR FORCE FORBES FIELD ANG KANSAS 487 41.6
AIR FORCE FORT SMITH MUNICIPAL AIRPORT ANG ARKANSAS 418 23.6
AIR FORCE FORT WAYNE INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT INDIANA 436 39.9
AIR FORCE FRANCIS E WARREN AIR FORCE BASE WYOMING 3,135 332.6
AIR FORCE FRANCIS S GABRESKI AIRPORT (ANG) NEW YORK 360 30.8
AIR FORCE FRESNO YOSEMITE INTERNATIONAL CALIFORNIA 454 23.4
H-3
Component Installation Name State / Country Gross Square Footage
(‘000 SF)
Total Site Delivered
Energy (BBtu)
AIR FORCE FT INDIANTOWN GAP ANG STATION PENNSYLVANIA 348 17.3
AIR FORCE CARSWELL AIR RESERVE STATION TEXAS 360 12.6
AIR FORCE GENERAL MITCHELL INTERNATIONAL APT (ANG) WISCONSIN 383 31.9
AIR FORCE GENERAL WAYNE A. DOWNING PEORIA
INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT (ANG) ILLINOIS 448 35.3
AIR FORCE GOODFELLOW AIR FORCE BASE TEXAS 2,590 227.2
AIR FORCE GRAND FORKS AIR FORCE BASE NORTH DAKOTA 2,729 323.3
AIR FORCE GREAT FALLS IAP ANG MONTANA 428 36.6
AIR FORCE GRISSOM AIR RESERVE BASE INDIANA 1,080 153.3
AIR FORCE GULFPORT-BILOXI REGIONAL AIRPORT (ANG) MISSISSIPPI 634 24.0
AIR FORCE SYRACUSE HANCOCK FIELD ANG NEW YORK 499 48.3
AIR FORCE HANSCOM AIR FORCE BASE MASSACHUSETTS 3,535 421.1
AIR FORCE HARRISBURG IAP PENNSYLVANIA 330 25.3
AIR FORCE HECTOR INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT (ANG) NORTH DAKOTA 492 34.8
AIR FORCE HICKAM AIR FORCE BASE HAWAII 852 32.4
AIR FORCE HILL AIR FORCE BASE UTAH 13,492 2,565.6
AIR FORCE HOLLOMAN AIR FORCE BASE NEW MEXICO 5,436 502.8
AIR FORCE HOMESTEAD AIR RESERVE BASE FLORIDA 1,156 57.7
AIR FORCE WILLOW GROVE AIR RESERVE STATION PENNSYLVANIA 517 37.1
AIR FORCE HULMAN REGIONAL AIRPORT INDIANA 393 37.8
AIR FORCE HURLBURT FIELD FLORIDA 4,855 255.9
AIR FORCE INCIRLIK AIR BASE ADANA TURKEY 5,346 283.2
AIR FORCE JACKSON INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT MISSISSIPPI 547 54.9
AIR FORCE JACKSONVILLE IAP ANG FLORIDA 442 23.6
AIR FORCE JOINT BASE ANDREWS-NAVAL AIR FACILITY
WASHINGTON MARYLAND 5,505 543.9
AIR FORCE CHARLESTON AIR FORCE BASE SOUTH CAROLINA 8,679 757.4
AIR FORCE JEFFERSON BARRACKS ANG STATION MISSOURI 210 15.6
AIR FORCE JOE FOSS FIELD ANG SOUTH DAKOTA 442 45.0
H-4
Component Installation Name State / Country Gross Square Footage
(‘000 SF)
Total Site Delivered
Energy (BBtu)
AIR FORCE JOINT BASE ELMENDORF-FT RICHARDSON ALASKA 556 46.5
AIR FORCE JOINT BASE ELMENDORF-FT RICHARDSON ALASKA 11,758 1,589.6
AIR FORCE LANGLEY AIR FORCE BASE VIRGINIA 11,442 1,168.6
AIR FORCE MCGUIRE AIR FORCE BASE NEW JERSEY 12,655 1,154.2
AIR FORCE JOINT BASE SAN ANTONIO TEXAS 35,705 3,544.2
AIR FORCE KADENA AIR BASE JAPAN 23,898 1,163.3
AIR FORCE KEESLER AIR FORCE BASE MISSISSIPPI 6,446 632.7
AIR FORCE KELLY FIELD ANNEX (LACKLAND AFB) TEXAS 388 32.0
AIR FORCE KEY FIELD AIR NATIONAL GUARD MISSISSIPPI 409 26.7
AIR FORCE KIRTLAND AIR FORCE BASE NEW MEXICO 7,318 853.8
AIR FORCE KIRTLAND AIR FORCE BASE NEW MEXICO 314 16.9
AIR FORCE KLAMATH FALLS AIRPORT-KINGSLEY FIELD OREGON 500 44.3
AIR FORCE KUNSAN AIR BASE REPUBLIC OF
KOREA 3,610 310.2
AIR FORCE LAJES FIELD PORTUGAL 1,552 37.3
AIR FORCE LAMBERT ST LOUIS IAP ANG MISSOURI 294 9.5
AIR FORCE LAUGHLIN AIR FORCE BASE TEXAS 1,926 92.4
AIR FORCE LINCOLN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT (ANG) NEBRASKA 356 32.2
AIR FORCE LITTLE ROCK AIR FORCE BASE ARKANSAS 3,506 404.3
AIR FORCE LITTLE ROCK AIR FORCE BASE ARKANSAS 315 19.9
AIR FORCE LOS ANGELES AIR FORCE BASE CALIFORNIA 1,109 86.7
AIR FORCE LOUISVILLE INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT -
STANDIFORD FIELD KENTUCKY 417 25.5
AIR FORCE LUIS MUNOZ MARIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PUERTO RICO 475 22.2
AIR FORCE LUKE AIR FORCE BASE ARIZONA 3,810 271.8
AIR FORCE MACDILL AIR FORCE BASE FLORIDA 5,343 541.5
AIR FORCE MALMSTROM AIR FORCE BASE MONTANA 3,187 713.5
AIR FORCE MANSFIELD LAHM AIRPORT ANG OHIO 448 52.6
AIR FORCE MARCH AIR RESERVE BASE CALIFORNIA 2,355 147.4
H-5
Component Installation Name State / Country Gross Square Footage
(‘000 SF)
Total Site Delivered
Energy (BBtu)
AIR FORCE MARCH AIR RESERVE BASE CALIFORNIA 308 72.7
AIR FORCE MARTIN STATE AIRPORT ANG MARYLAND 442 30.9
AIR FORCE MAXWELL AIR FORCE BASE ALABAMA 6,081 654.1
AIR FORCE MCCONNELL AIR FORCE BASE KANSAS 2,827 318.2
AIR FORCE MCCONNELL AIR FORCE BASE KANSAS 529 77.2
AIR FORCE MCENTIRE JOINT NATIONAL GUARD BASE SOUTH CAROLINA 442 33.5
AIR FORCE MCGHEE TYSON AIRPORT TENNESSEE 881 82.6
AIR FORCE MCGUIRE AIR FORCE BASE NEW JERSEY 436 42.9
AIR FORCE MEMPHIS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT TENNESSEE 626 72.8
AIR FORCE MINNEAPOLIS-ST PAUL IAP-AIR RESERVE STN MINNESOTA 710 71.5
AIR FORCE MINNEAPOLIS-ST PAUL IAP-AIR RESERVE STN MINNESOTA 467 40.3
AIR FORCE MINOT AIR FORCE BASE NORTH DAKOTA 4,409 589.4
AIR FORCE MISAWA AIR BASE JAPAN 7,575 1,175.7
AIR FORCE MOFFETT FLD ANG CALIFORNIA 441 12.6
AIR FORCE MONTGOMERY REGIONAL AIRPORT (ANG) BASE ALABAMA 505 33.1
AIR FORCE MOODY AIR FORCE BASE GEORGIA 3,222 219.2
AIR FORCE MORON AIR BASE SPAIN 741 28.5
AIR FORCE MOUNTAIN HOME AIR FORCE BASE IDAHO 2,935 327.7
AIR FORCE NASHVILLE INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT TENNESSEE 262 21.7
AIR FORCE NELLIS AIR FORCE BASE NEVADA 9,831 880.3
AIR FORCE NEW CASTLE COUNTY AIRPORT DELAWARE 339 29.0
AIR FORCE NEW ORLEANS NAS ANG LOUISIANA 507 38.2
AIR FORCE NIAGARA FALLS IAP-AIR RESERVE STATION NEW YORK 755 81.7
AIR FORCE NIAGARA FALLS IAP-AIR RESERVE STATION NEW YORK 183 14.7
AIR FORCE NORTH HIGHLANDS ANG STATION CALIFORNIA 133 5.2
AIR FORCE OFFUTT AIR FORCE BASE NEBRASKA 6,317 883.7
AIR FORCE OSAN AIR BASE REPUBLIC OF
KOREA 7,971 625.6
AIR FORCE OTIS AIR NATIONAL GUARD BASE MASSACHUSETTS 746 61.6
H-6
Component Installation Name State / Country Gross Square Footage
(‘000 SF)
Total Site Delivered
Energy (BBtu)
AIR FORCE PATRICK AIR FORCE BASE FLORIDA 6,398 751.5
AIR FORCE PEASE INTERNATIONAL TRADEPORT NEW HAMPSHIRE 533 49.9
AIR FORCE PETERSON AIR FORCE BASE COLORADO 6,822 1,741.1
AIR FORCE PITTSBURGH IAP-AIR RESERVE STN PENNSYLVANIA 569 48.6
AIR FORCE PITTSBURGH INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT (ANG) PENNSYLVANIA 450 67.6
AIR FORCE PORTLAND INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT OREGON 790 52.5
AIR FORCE QUONSET STATE AIRPORT ANG RHODE ISLAND 410 38.1
AIR FORCE RAF ALCONBURY UNITED KINGDOM 1,561 143.9
AIR FORCE RAF CROUGHTON UNITED KINGDOM 1,097 91.5
AIR FORCE RAF FAIRFORD UNITED KINGDOM 1,045 43.3
AIR FORCE RAF LAKENHEATH UNITED KINGDOM 7,032 510.9
AIR FORCE RAF MILDENHALL UNITED KINGDOM 2,986 274.2
AIR FORCE RAMSTEIN AIR BASE GERMANY 14,878 982.1
AIR FORCE RENO TAHOE INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT NEVADA 403 25.1
AIR FORCE RICKENBACKER INTERNATION AIRPORT (ANG) OHIO 509 47.3
AIR FORCE ROBINS AIR FORCE BASE GEORGIA 13,223 1,997.5
AIR FORCE ROBINS AIR FORCE BASE GEORGIA 724 53.9
AIR FORCE ROSECRANS MEMORIAL AIRPORT MISSOURI 399 26.3
AIR FORCE SALT LAKE CITY INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT ANG UTAH 501 43.5
AIR FORCE SAVANNAH/HILTON HEAD INTERNATIONAL AP GEORGIA 901 43.9
AIR FORCE SCHENECTADY COUNTY AIRPORT ANG NEW YORK 422 38.4
AIR FORCE SCHRIEVER AIR FORCE BASE COLORADO 2,291 424.9
AIR FORCE SCOTT AIR FORCE BASE ILLINOIS 4,828 592.4
AIR FORCE SCOTT AIR FORCE BASE ILLINOIS 354 34.5
AIR FORCE SELFRIDGE ANG BASE MICHIGAN 1,627 174.3
AIR FORCE SEYMOUR JOHNSON AIR FORCE BASE NORTH CAROLINA 3,124 305.9
AIR FORCE SHAW AIR FORCE BASE SOUTH CAROLINA 3,302 302.7
AIR FORCE SHEPPARD AIR FORCE BASE TEXAS 7,234 666.2
H-7
Component Installation Name State / Country Gross Square Footage
(‘000 SF)
Total Site Delivered
Energy (BBtu)
AIR FORCE SIOUX GATEWAY AP/COL. BUD DAY FIELD(ANG) IOWA 432 41.2
AIR FORCE SKY HARBOR INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT ARIZONA 276 16.6
AIR FORCE SPANGDAHLEM AIR BASE GERMANY 5,124 349.4
AIR FORCE SPRINGFIELD BECKLEY MUNICIPAL AIRPORT OHIO 504 43.1
AIR FORCE STEWART INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT NEW YORK 868 92.2
AIR FORCE TINKER AIR FORCE BASE OKLAHOMA 18,715 2,507.9
AIR FORCE TOLEDO EXPRESS AIRPORT ANG OHIO 379 30.7
AIR FORCE TRAVIS AIR FORCE BASE CALIFORNIA 6,471 439.7
AIR FORCE TUCSON INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT ARIZONA 597 47.4
AIR FORCE TULSA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT OKLAHOMA 384 39.9
AIR FORCE TYNDALL AIR FORCE BASE FLORIDA 4,207 324.1
AIR FORCE USAF ACADEMY COLORADO 6,702 753.6
AIR FORCE VANCE AIR FORCE BASE OKLAHOMA 1,468 141.7
AIR FORCE VANDENBERG AIR FORCE BASE CALIFORNIA 5,092 516.9
AIR FORCE VOLK FIELD WISCONSIN 668 50.7
AIR FORCE W K KELLOGG AIRPORT MICHIGAN 406 55.1
AIR FORCE WESTOVER AIR RESERVE BASE MASSACHUSETTS 1,695 173.8
AIR FORCE WHITEMAN AIR FORCE BASE MISSOURI 3,781 534.4
AIR FORCE WILL ROGERS WORLD AIRPORT OKLAHOMA 403 31.2
AIR FORCE WRIGHT PATTERSON AIR FORCE BASE OHIO 16,667 3,035.4
AIR FORCE YEAGER AIRPORT ANG WEST VIRGINIA 437 43.9
AIR FORCE YOKOTA AIR BASE JAPAN 10,098 1,238.1
AIR FORCE YOUNGSTOWN-WARREN REGIONAL AIRPORT ARS OHIO 742 78.4
ARMY ANNISTON ARMY DEPOT ALABAMA 9,766 709.8
ARMY PINE BLUFF ARSENAL ARKANSAS 3,421 314.3
ARMY SIERRA ARMY DEPOT CALIFORNIA 5,348 142.9
ARMY MILITARY OCEAN TML CONCORD CALIFORNIA 267 12.2
ARMY PUEBLO CHEMICAL DEPOT COLORADO 1,078 33.8
H-8
Component Installation Name State / Country Gross Square Footage
(‘000 SF)
Total Site Delivered
Energy (BBtu)
ARMY IOWA AAP (GOCO) IOWA 3,814 675.5
ARMY BLUE GRASS ARMY DEPOT KENTUCKY 4,203 152.0
ARMY LAKE CITY AAP (GOCO) MISSOURI 2,829 1,033.8
ARMY HAWTHORNE AAP (GOCO) NEVADA 9,716 141.2
ARMY WATERVLIET ARSENAL NEW YORK 2,175 346.9
ARMY MOT SUNNY POINT NORTH CAROLINA 352 14.9
ARMY LIMA JSMC OHIO 1,614 468.7
ARMY MCALESTER AAP OKLAHOMA 10,397 469.0
ARMY LETTERKENNY ARMY DEPOT PENNSYLVANIA 5,391 359.7
ARMY SCRANTON AAP PENNSYLVANIA 683 443.4
ARMY TOBYHANNA ARMY DEPOT PENNSYLVANIA 4,466 548.5
ARMY HOLSTON AAP (GOCO) TENNESSEE 1,811 2,748.1
ARMY MILAN AAP (GOCO) TENNESSEE 3,318 19.1
ARMY CORPUS CHRISTI AD TEXAS 2,746 298.5
ARMY RED RIVER DEPOT TEXAS 7,506 854.3
ARMY TOOELE ARMY DEPOT UTAH 3,840 76.4
ARMY RADFORD AAP (GOCO) VIRGINIA 2,503 2,972.9
ARMY ALABAMA ARNG ALABAMA 3,550 239.5
ARMY ALASKA ARNG ALASKA 312 146.2
ARMY ARIZONA ARNG ARIZONA 1,603 70.1
ARMY ARKANSAS ARNG ARKANSAS 4,233 230.2
ARMY CALIFORNIA ARNG CALIFORNIA 5,298 190.5
ARMY COLORADO ARNG COLORADO 536 75.3
ARMY CONNECTICUT ARNG CONNECTICUT 1,265 93.8
ARMY DELAWARE ARNG DELAWARE 602 23.8
ARMY DC ARNG (MOB) DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA 494 49.8
ARMY FLORIDA ARNG FLORIDA 2,865 110.1
ARMY GEORGIA ARNG GEORGIA 1,757 117.2
H-9
Component Installation Name State / Country Gross Square Footage
(‘000 SF)
Total Site Delivered
Energy (BBtu)
ARMY HAWAII ARNG HAWAII 1,123 23.7
ARMY IDAHO ARNG IDAHO 812 112.1
ARMY ILLINOIS ARNG ILLINOIS 2,666 132.7
ARMY INDIANA ARNG INDIANA 4,423 365.1
ARMY IOWA ARNG IOWA 3,022 137.0
ARMY KANSAS ARNG KANSAS 1,499 106.8
ARMY KENTUCKY ARNG KENTUCKY 1,646 61.8
ARMY LOUISIANA ARNG LOUISIANA 2,970 179.7
ARMY MAINE ARNG MAINE 1,055 47.9
ARMY MARYLAND ARNG MARYLAND 1,253 76.9
ARMY MASSACHUSETTS ARNG MASSACHUSETTS 1,977 149.9
ARMY MICHIGAN ARNG MICHIGAN 3,878 377.7
ARMY MINNESOTA ARNG MINNESOTA 4,173 259.8
ARMY MISSISSIPPI ARNG MISSISSIPPI 5,762 239.3
ARMY MISSOURI ARNG MISSOURI 1,930 144.2
ARMY MONTANA ARNG MONTANA 1,364 75.7
ARMY NEBRASKA ARNG NEBRASKA 1,573 87.8
ARMY NEVADA ARNG NEVADA 566 29.5
ARMY NEW HAMPSHIRE ARNG NEW HAMPSHIRE 834 42.6
ARMY NEW JERSEY ARNG NEW JERSEY 1,255 139.5
ARMY NEW MEXICO ARNG NEW MEXICO 798 72.7
ARMY NEW YORK ARNG NEW YORK 2,488 168.1
ARMY NORTH CAROLINA ARNG NORTH CAROLINA 1,390 145.8
ARMY NORTH DAKOTA ARNG NORTH DAKOTA 1,796 137.7
ARMY OHIO ARNG OHIO 3,309 226.1
ARMY OKLAHOMA ARNG OKLAHOMA 1,930 127.0
ARMY OREGON ARNG OREGON 2,252 110.2
ARMY PENNSYLVANIA ARNG PENNSYLVANIA 5,093 329.8
H-10
Component Installation Name State / Country Gross Square Footage
(‘000 SF)
Total Site Delivered
Energy (BBtu)
ARMY RHODE ISLAND ARNG RHODE ISLAND 1,231 60.8
ARMY SOUTH CAROLINA ARNG SOUTH CAROLINA 1,376 116.0
ARMY SOUTH DAKOTA ARNG SOUTH DAKOTA 1,109 61.2
ARMY TENNESSEE ARNG TENNESSEE 2,298 134.0
ARMY TEXAS ARNG TEXAS 3,436 161.4
ARMY UTAH ARNG UTAH 1,956 124.6
ARMY VERMONT ARNG VERMONT 1,160 59.4
ARMY VIRGINIA ARNG VIRGINIA 3,385 208.6
ARMY WASHINGTON ARNG WASHINGTON 892 54.0
ARMY WEST VIRGINIA ARNG WEST VIRGINIA 2,032 179.5
ARMY WISCONSIN ARNG WISCONSIN 2,121 189.7
ARMY WYOMING ARNG WYOMING 835 87.8
ARMY GUAM ARNG (MOB) GUAM 256 10.5
ARMY PUERTO RICO ARNG (MOB) PUERTO RICO 1,472 31.6
ARMY VIRGIN ISLANDS ARNG (MOB) VIRGIN ISLANDS 300 9.7
ARMY REDSTONE ARSENAL ALABAMA 13,038 1,653.6
ARMY FORT RUCKER ALABAMA 5,912 494.0
ARMY FORT GREELY ALASKA 1,069 211.1
ARMY FORT WAINWRIGHT ALASKA 6,797 1,662.0
ARMY FORT HUACHUCA ARIZONA 5,905 424.3
ARMY YUMA PROVING GROUND ARIZONA 1,853 144.2
ARMY FORT IRWIN CALIFORNIA 4,560 341.2
ARMY PRESIDIO OF MONTEREY CALIFORNIA 2,722 168.5
ARMY FORT CARSON COLORADO 14,807 1,391.7
ARMY USAG MIAMI FLORIDA 782 89.3
ARMY FORT BENNING GEORGIA 20,588 1,426.5
ARMY FORT GORDON GEORGIA 10,282 854.3
ARMY FORT STEWART GEORGIA 15,095 1,009.7
H-11
Component Installation Name State / Country Gross Square Footage
(‘000 SF)
Total Site Delivered
Energy (BBtu)
ARMY USAG HAWAII HAWAII 14,681 828.2
ARMY ROCK ISLAND ARSENAL ILLINOIS 6,644 467.1
ARMY FORT LEAVENWORTH KANSAS 4,490 393.7
ARMY FORT RILEY KANSAS 11,792 1,042.8
ARMY FORT CAMPBELL KENTUCKY 17,284 1,664.7
ARMY FORT KNOX KENTUCKY 11,562 929.2
ARMY FORT POLK LOUISIANA 7,764 762.7
ARMY ABERDEEN PG MARYLAND 14,664 2,759.7
ARMY FORT DETRICK MARYLAND 3,471 992.9
ARMY ADELPHI LABORATORY CTR MARYLAND 1,168 238.1
ARMY FORT GEORGE MEADE MARYLAND 10,633 661.8
ARMY SOLDIER SYSTEMS CTR, NATICK MASSACHUSETTS 994 127.8
ARMY USAG DETROIT ARSENAL MICHIGAN 1,928 244.3
ARMY FORT LEONARD WOOD MISSOURI 12,338 1,486.7
ARMY PICATINNY ARSENAL NEW JERSEY 3,332 539.3
ARMY WHITE SANDS MISSILE RANGE NEW MEXICO 4,720 261.3
ARMY FORT DRUM NEW YORK 12,184 707.2
ARMY FORT HAMILTON NEW YORK 686 65.4
ARMY WEST POINT MIL RESERVATION NEW YORK 8,168 953.5
ARMY FORT BRAGG NORTH CAROLINA 34,228 3,306.9
ARMY FORT SILL OKLAHOMA 12,339 1,115.1
ARMY CARLISLE BARRACKS PENNSYLVANIA 1,136 128.5
ARMY FORT JACKSON SOUTH CAROLINA 10,794 788.3
ARMY FORT BLISS TEXAS 22,607 1,134.1
ARMY FORT HOOD TEXAS 23,019 1,941.3
ARMY DUGWAY PROVING GROUND UTAH 2,073 230.9
ARMY FORT BELVOIR VIRGINIA 13,253 1,055.1
ARMY FORT A P HILL VIRGINIA 1,521 75.8
H-12
Component Installation Name State / Country Gross Square Footage
(‘000 SF)
Total Site Delivered
Energy (BBtu)
ARMY FORT LEE VIRGINIA 10,133 804.9
ARMY JOINT BASE MYER-HENDERSON HALL VIRGINIA 3,714 428.8
ARMY JOINT BASE LEWIS MCCHORD WASHINGTON 26,409 1,993.6
ARMY USAG BENELUX BELGIUM 5,586 162.2
ARMY USAG ANSBACH GERMANY 7,114 307.8
ARMY USAG BAVARIA GERMANY 23,862 1,588.5
ARMY USAG RHEINLAND-PFALZ GERMANY 24,690 1,255.8
ARMY USAG STUTTGART GERMANY 8,680 585.2
ARMY USAG WIESBADEN GERMANY 9,888 565.5
ARMY USAG VICENZA ITALY 8,123 608.7
ARMY CAMP ZAMA JAPAN JAPAN 10,190 638.3
ARMY USAG DAEGU SOUTH KOREA 6,582 446.3
ARMY USAG RED CLOUD SOUTH KOREA 9,860 904.8
ARMY USAG HUMPHREYS SOUTH KOREA 17,184 1,472.7
ARMY USAG YONGSAN SOUTH KOREA 8,293 810.4
ARMY KWAJALEIN ATOLL MARSHALL
ISLANDS 3,388 914.9
ARMY 81ST RSC SOUTH CAROLINA 6,045 234.7
ARMY FORT HUNTER LIGGETT CALIFORNIA 1,453 32.1
ARMY 63RD RSC CALIFORNIA 5,880 237.2
ARMY PARKS CSTC CALIFORNIA 1,132 46.4
ARMY DEVENS RFTA MASSACHUSETTS 1,127 120.2
ARMY 88TH RSC WISCONSIN 9,457 617.8
ARMY 99TH RSC NEW JERSEY 7,349 368.3
ARMY FORT MCCOY WISCONSIN 6,890 402.8
ARMY 9TH MSC HAWAII 174 7.2
ARMY FORT BUCHANAN PUERTO RICO 1,765 118.9
NAVY NAVAL STATION GREAT LAKES IL ILLINOIS 9,528 1,066.9
H-13
Component Installation Name State / Country Gross Square Footage
(‘000 SF)
Total Site Delivered
Energy (BBtu)
NAVY SUBASE NEW LONDON CT CONNECTICUT 3,165 843.2
NAVY NAS PENSACOLA FL FLORIDA 11,573 954.5
NAVY NAS JRB NEW ORLEANS LA LOUISIANA 2,283 193.2
NAVY NAS JACKSONVILLE FL FLORIDA 8,850 996.2
NAVY NAS KEY WEST FL FLORIDA 2,941 264.4
NAVY NAS CORPUS CHRISTI TX TEXAS 2,726 199.2
NAVY NAVBASE SAN DIEGO CA CALIFORNIA 9,229 1,899.3
NAVY NAVBASE CORONADO CALIFORNIA 13,917 1,777.9
NAVY NAS WHIDBEY ISLAND WA WASHINGTON 3,894 490.9
NAVY NAVSUPPACT MIDSOUTH MEMPHIS TN TENNESSEE 2,784 211.0
NAVY NAVAL STATION NEWPORT RI RHODE ISLAND 6,030 614.6
NAVY NAVSUPPACT MECHANICSBURG PA PENNSYLVANIA 11,375 552.0
NAVY NAVSUPPACT NORFOLK NSY VIRGINIA 7,476 674.3
NAVY NSY PORTSMOUTH MAINE 4,455 1,139.4
NAVY FLEET ACTIVITIES CHINHAE KS REPUBLIC OF
KOREA 419 27.5
NAVY NAVSUPPACT BETHESDA MD MARYLAND 7,594 1,161.8
NAVY CAMP LEMONNIER DJIBOUTI DJIBOUTI 1,875 917.3
NAVY NSA ANDERSEN GUAM 6,706 320.0
NAVY SUBASE KINGS BAY GA GEORGIA 5,334 770.5
NAVY NAVAL AIR STATION PAX RIVER MARYLAND 8,498 1,029.2
NAVY NAWS CHINA LAKE CALIFORNIA 4,666 514.4
NAVY JNTEXPBASE LITTLE CREEK FS VA VIRGINIA 5,703 740.3
NAVY NAVHOSP BEAUFORT SC SOUTH CAROLINA 431 60.7
NAVY NAVSUPPACT HAMPTON ROADS VA VIRGINIA 7,319 905.3
NAVY NAF EL CENTRO CA CALIFORNIA 1,194 81.3
NAVY NAS OCEANA VA VIRGINIA 8,049 695.7
H-14
Component Installation Name State / Country Gross Square Footage
(‘000 SF)
Total Site Delivered
Energy (BBtu)
NAVY NAVSTA MAYPORT FL FLORIDA 2,684 464.5
NAVY NAS KINGSVILLE TX TEXAS 1,153 119.6
NAVY NAS FALLON NV NEVADA 2,188 212.0
NAVY NAS WHITING FLD MILTON FL FLORIDA 1,311 96.8
NAVY NAVSTA GUANTANAMO BAY DIEGO GARCIA 6,506 1,151.0
NAVY NAVAL SUPPORT ACTIVITY ORLANDO FLORIDA 308 22.9
NAVY NAVAL SUPPORT ACTY PANAMA CITY FLORIDA 1,546 134.8
NAVY NSA SARATOGA SPRINGS NY NEW YORK 40 3.1
NAVY NAVSUPPDET MONTEREY CA CALIFORNIA 1,825 134.0
NAVY NAVAL SUPPORT ACTIVITY CRANE INDIANA 4,233 760.7
NAVY COMFLEACT YOKOSUKA JA JAPAN 12,869 3,001.8
NAVY COMFLEACT OKINAWA JA JAPAN 844 60.8
NAVY NAF ATSUGI JA JAPAN 4,204 583.2
NAVY COMFLEACT SASEBO JA JAPAN 4,480 498.1
NAVY NAF MISAWA JA JAPAN 907 82.6
NAVY CNIC PMRF BARKING SANDS HAWAII 595 86.0
NAVY NAVWPNSTA SEAL BEACH CALIFORNIA 2,033 80.9
NAVY CNI NAVMAG INDIAN ISLAND WASHINGTON 376 18.4
NAVY SINGAPORE AREA COORDINATOR SINGAPORE 1,157 42.1
NAVY JBAB ANACOSTIA BOLLING DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA 3,490 415.7
NAVY NSA SOUTH POTOMAC VIRGINIA 6,461 1,410.5
NAVY NAVSUPPACT ANNAPOLIS MARYLAND 6,023 692.9
NAVY NAVBASE GUAM GUAM 10,091 581.7
NAVY NAVSUPPACT NAPLES IT ITALY 5,664 367.2
NAVY CBC GULFPORT MS MISSISSIPPI 4,634 142.0
NAVY NAVSTA NORFOLK VA VIRGINIA 15,513 3,836.4
H-15
Component Installation Name State / Country Gross Square Footage
(‘000 SF)
Total Site Delivered
Energy (BBtu)
NAVY JBPHH PEARL HARBOR - HICKAM HAWAII HAWAII 21,110 1,677.4
NAVY NAVSTA ROTA SP SPAIN 3,721 260.8
NAVY NAS SIGONELLA IT ITALY 3,075 198.3
NAVY NAVSUPPACT BAHRAIN BAHRAIN 2,775 263.4
NAVY NAS LEMOORE CA CALIFORNIA 3,854 421.2
NAVY NAS MERIDIAN MS MISSISSIPPI 1,602 154.3
NAVY NAVBASE POINT LOMA CALIFORNIA 6,605 421.3
NAVY FRC EAST CHERRY POINT NC NC 2,036 673.0
NAVY NAVSUPPACT SOUDA BAY GR GREECE 514 28.9
NAVY NAVAL BASE KITSAP BREMERTON WA WASHINGTON 15,228 2,866.2
NAVY NAVAL SUPPORT ACTIVITY WASH DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA 9,776 1,854.9
NAVY NAVSUPPFAC DIEGO GARCIA IO GUANTANOMO
BAY 2,325 928.3
NAVY NAVSTA EVERETT WA WASHINGTON 1,839 313.6
NAVY NAVAL WEAPONS STATION YORKTOWN VIRGINIA 6,093 213.8
NAVY NAVAL WEAPONS STATION EARLE NJ NEW JERSEY 1,240 160.6
NAVY NAVBASE VENTURA CTY PT MUGU CA CALIFORNIA 9,296 345.7
NAVY NAS JRB FT WORTH TX TEXAS 3,344 268.6
MARINE CORPS MCAS BEAUFORT SC SOUTH CAROLINA 3,045 191.5
MARINE CORPS MCAS CHERRY POINT NC NORTH CAROLINA 6,622 760.7
MARINE CORPS MCAS IWAKUNI JA JAPAN 9,124 954.0
MARINE CORPS MCAS MIRAMAR CALIFORNIA 6,461 322.6
MARINE CORPS MCAS YUMA AZ ARIZONA 3,295 199.2
MARINE CORPS MCB CAMP LEJEUNE NC NORTH CAROLINA 27,385 2,000.6
MARINE CORPS MCB CAMP PENDLETON CA CALIFORNIA 20,928 958.4
MARINE CORPS MCB CAMP S D BUTLER OKINAWA JA JAPAN 18,901 947.7
MARINE CORPS MCB HAWAII KANEOHE HAWAII 7,430 309.2
H-16
Component Installation Name State / Country Gross Square Footage
(‘000 SF)
Total Site Delivered
Energy (BBtu)
MARINE CORPS MCLB ALBANY GA GEORGIA 6,995 223.9
MARINE CORPS MCLB BARSTOW CA CALIFORNIA 4,637 233.2
MARINE CORPS MARCORCRUITDEP PARRIS ISLAND SC SOUTH CAROLINA 3,640 450.1
MARINE CORPS MCSF BLOUNT ISLAND FLORIDA 978 32.1
MARINE CORPS MARCORPRCUITDEP SAN DIEGO CA CALIFORNIA 2,718 134.1
MARINE CORPS MARCORPS DIST 1 GARDEN CITY NY NEW YORK 174 31.1
MARINE CORPS MARFORRES NEW ORLEANS LOUISIANA 1,895 133.2
MARINE CORPS MARINE CORPS BASE QUANTICO VA VIRGINIA 7,695 903.8
MARINE CORPS MCAGCC TWENTYNINE PALMS CA CALIFORNIA 6,896 1,166.5
MARINE CORPS MARBKS WASHINGTON DC DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA 526 47.7
MARINE CORPS CAMP MUJUK REPUBLIC OF KOREA REPUBLIC OF
KOREA 292 29.6
MARINE CORPS CATC CAMP FUJI JA JAPAN 641 72.0
MARINE CORPS NAVAL HOSPITAL 29 PALMS CA CALIFORNIA 233 26.1
MARINE CORPS MCAS FUTENMA JA JAPAN 2,060 122.0
MARINE CORPS MCMWTC BRIDGEPORT CA CALIFORNIA 368 48.1
MARINE CORPS MCAS CAMP PENDLETON CA CALIFORNIA 1,220 60.6
MARINE CORPS NAVAL HOSPITAL CAMP LEJEUNE NC NORTH CAROLINA 938 148.2
MARINE CORPS NAVAL HOSPITAL CAMP PENDLETON CA CALIFORNIA 926 127.1
MARINE CORPS NAVAL HOSPITAL OKINAWA JA JAPAN 761 147.6
DCMA DCMA CLEVELAND OHIO 78 9.3
DCMA DCMA CARSON CALIFORNIA 85 8.5
DECA ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND MARYLAND 62 7.5
DECA MCLB ALBANY GA GEORGIA 37 5.6
DECA ALTUS AIR FORCE BASE OKLAHOMA 58 8.2
DECA JOINT BASE ELMENDORF-FT RICHARDSON ALASKA 105 13.5
DECA NSA ANDERSEN GUAM 122 10.7
H-17
Component Installation Name State / Country Gross Square Footage
(‘000 SF)
Total Site Delivered
Energy (BBtu)
DECA JOINT BASE ANDREWS-NAVAL AIR FACILITY
WASHINGTON MARYLAND 113 17.0
DECA NAVSUPPACT ANNAPOLIS MARYLAND 48 6.8
DECA US ARMY GARRISON ANSBACH GERMANY 58 11.3
DECA ARNOLD AIR STATION TENNESSEE 23 4.2
DECA NAF ATSUGI JA JAPAN 32 4.7
DECA AVIANO AIR BASE ITALY 64 7.0
DECA BANGOR INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT (ANG) MAINE 29 4.9
DECA NAVAL BASE KITSAP BREMERTON WA WASHINGTON 61 9.1
DECA BARKSDALE AIR FORCE BASE LOUISIANA 104 11.1
DECA MCLB BARSTOW CA CALIFORNIA 22 3.1
DECA US ARMY GARRISON BAUMHOLDER GERMANY 32 5.8
DECA BEALE AIR FORCE BASE CALIFORNIA 75 6.6
DECA JBAB ANACOSTIA BOLLING DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA 72 10.5
DECA NAVAL BASE KITSAP BREMERTON WA WASHINGTON 48 8.6
DECA MCAGCC TWENTYNINE PALMS CA CALIFORNIA 13 2.0
DECA BUCKLEY AIR FORCE BASE COLORADO 77 9.6
DECA CAMP HENRY REPUBLIC OF
KOREA 8 1.1
DECA CAMP CASEY REPUBLIC OF
KOREA 17 2.9
DECA MCB CAMP S D BUTLER OKINAWA JA JAPAN 31 5.5
DECA MCB CAMP S D BUTLER OKINAWA JA JAPAN 59 7.7
DECA CAMP HUMPHREYS REPUBLIC OF
KOREA 90 5.1
DECA MCB CAMP S D BUTLER OKINAWA JA JAPAN 31 5.3
DECA CAMP ZAMA JAPAN 2 0.6
DECA MCB CAMP LEJEUNE NC NORTH CAROLINA 76 8.5
H-18
Component Installation Name State / Country Gross Square Footage
(‘000 SF)
Total Site Delivered
Energy (BBtu)
DECA FORT BENNING GEORGIA 3 0.4
DECA MCB CAMP PENDLETON CA CALIFORNIA 113 13.6
DECA CAMP RED CLOUD REPUBLIC OF
KOREA 11 1.9
DECA CAMP ZAMA JAPAN 13 1.7
DECA CANNON AIR FORCE BASE NEW MEXICO 58 6.3
DECA CARLISLE BARRACKS PENNSYLVANIA 60 5.9
DECA CHARLESTON AIR FORCE BASE SOUTH CAROLINA 86 11.8
DECA CHARLESTON AIR FORCE BASE SOUTH CAROLINA 64 10.1
DECA MCAS CHERRY POINT NC NORTH CAROLINA 59 7.0
DECA US ARMY GARRISON BENELUX BELGIUM 46 8.4
DECA NAWS CHINA LAKE CALIFORNIA 24 2.9
DECA FLEET ACTIVITIES CHINHAE KS REPUBLIC OF
KOREA 11 2.1
DECA COLUMBUS AIR FORCE BASE MISSISSIPPI 49 4.4
DECA NAS CORPUS CHRISTI TX TEXAS 46 7.4
DECA NAVAL SUPPORT ACTIVITY CRANE INDIANA 8 1.1
DECA CAMP HENRY REPUBLIC OF
KOREA 38 4.3
DECA CAMP HENRY REPUBLIC OF
KOREA 16 1.5
DECA NSA SOUTH POTOMAC VIRGINIA 15 2.2
DECA DAVIS-MONTHAN AIR FORCE BASE ARIZONA 115 12.9
DECA RAMSTEIN AIR BASE GERMANY 37 1.9
DECA FORT LEE VIRGINIA 242 26.8
DECA BEALE AIR FORCE BASE CALIFORNIA 37 8.3
DECA DOVER AIR FORCE BASE DELAWARE 78 5.6
DECA DUGWAY PROVING GROUND UTAH 18 2.7
DECA DYESS AIR FORCE BASE TEXAS 80 5.2
H-19
Component Installation Name State / Country Gross Square Footage
(‘000 SF)
Total Site Delivered
Energy (BBtu)
DECA EDWARDS AIR FORCE BASE CALIFORNIA 60 5.7
DECA EGLIN AIR FORCE BASE FLORIDA 107 14.9
DECA EIELSON AIR FORCE BASE ALASKA 42 6.6
DECA NAF EL CENTRO CA CALIFORNIA 13 2.3
DECA ELLSWORTH AIR FORCE BASE SOUTH DAKOTA 72 9.4
DECA FRANCIS E WARREN AIR FORCE BASE WYOMING 77 6.4
DECA FAIRCHILD AIR FORCE BASE WASHINGTON 85 11.2
DECA NAS FALLON NV NEVADA 40 3.2
DECA FORT DETRICK MARYLAND 58 7.4
DECA FORT BELVOIR VIRGINIA 142 20.6
DECA FORT BENNING GEORGIA 118 20.2
DECA FORT BLISS TEXAS 123 13.2
DECA FORT BRAGG NORTH CAROLINA 95 11.7
DECA FORT BRAGG NORTH CAROLINA 118 14.7
DECA FORT BUCHANAN PUERTO RICO 95 12.2
DECA FORT CAMPBELL KENTUCKY 122 15.1
DECA FORT CARSON COLORADO 122 16.5
DECA FORT DETRICK MARYLAND 39 6.7
DECA FORT DRUM NEW YORK 83 13.4
DECA LANGLEY AIR FORCE BASE VIRGINIA 103 11.4
DECA FORT GORDON GEORGIA 92 11.7
DECA FORT GREELY ALASKA 25 5.3
DECA FORT HAMILTON NEW YORK 50 9.2
DECA FORT HOOD TEXAS 128 19.8
DECA FORT HOOD TEXAS 106 9.2
DECA FORT HUACHUCA ARIZONA 78 7.8
H-20
Component Installation Name State / Country Gross Square Footage
(‘000 SF)
Total Site Delivered
Energy (BBtu)
DECA COMBAT SUPPORT TRAINING CENTER AND CAMP
PARKS CALIFORNIA 8 1.6
DECA NATIONAL TRAINING CENTER AND FORT IRWIN CALIFORNIA 57 8.0
DECA FORT JACKSON SOUTH CAROLINA 130 12.2
DECA FORT KNOX KENTUCKY 122 12.4
DECA FORT LEAVENWORTH KANSAS 74 12.7
DECA FORT LEE VIRGINIA 81 12.0
DECA FORT LEONARD WOOD MISSOURI 71 11.2
DECA JOINT BASE LEWIS-MCCHORD WASHINGTON 105 11.9
DECA FORT MCCOY WISCONSIN 16 4.1
DECA FORT GEORGE G MEADE MARYLAND 118 15.2
DECA JOINT BASE MYER-HENDERSON HALL VIRGINIA 74 8.2
DECA FORT POLK LOUISIANA 82 12.0
DECA FORT RILEY KANSAS 113 15.9
DECA FORT RUCKER ALABAMA 84 8.8
DECA JBSA - FORT SAM HOUSTON TEXAS 104 14.4
DECA FORT SILL OKLAHOMA 102 15.2
DECA FORT STEWART GEORGIA 95 12.2
DECA FORT WAINWRIGHT ALASKA 104 21.7
DECA NAS JRB FT WORTH TX TEXAS 93 15.4
DECA US ARMY GARRISON GRAFENWOEHR GERMANY 14 1.0
DECA US ARMY GARRISON HEIDELBERG GERMANY 789 39.0
DECA GOODFELLOW AIR FORCE BASE TEXAS 57 7.2
DECA US ARMY GARRISON GRAFENWOEHR GERMANY 55 11.1
DECA GRAND FORKS AIR FORCE BASE NORTH DAKOTA 41 4.3
DECA NAVAL STATION GREAT LAKES IL ILLINOIS 60 9.1
DECA NAVBASE GUAM GUAM 57 8.8
H-21
Component Installation Name State / Country Gross Square Footage
(‘000 SF)
Total Site Delivered
Energy (BBtu)
DECA NAVBASE GUAM GUAM 187 16.3
DECA CBC GULFPORT MS MISSISSIPPI 31 6.8
DECA MAXWELL AIR FORCE BASE ALABAMA 42 6.1
DECA HANSCOM AIR FORCE BASE MASSACHUSETTS 73 11.1
DECA COMFLEACT SASEBO JA JAPAN 24 3.4
DECA 88TH REGIONAL SUPPORT COMMAND INDIANA 54 7.8
DECA JBPHH PEARL HARBOR - HICKAM HAWAII HAWAII 115 12.8
DECA HILL AIR FORCE BASE UTAH 87 10.3
DECA US ARMY GARRISON HOHENFELS GERMANY 38 5.4
DECA HOLLOMAN AIR FORCE BASE NEW MEXICO 69 3.5
DECA FORT STEWART GEORGIA 58 7.1
DECA EGLIN AIR FORCE BASE FLORIDA 63 11.8
DECA NAVBASE CORONADO CALIFORNIA 78 14.0
DECA INCIRLIK AIR BASE ADANA TURKEY 67 6.2
DECA MCAS IWAKUNI JA JAPAN 54 10.5
DECA INCIRLIK AIR BASE ADANA TURKEY 15 1.4
DECA NAS JACKSONVILLE FL FLORIDA 114 13.0
DECA YONGSAN GARRISON REPUBLIC OF
KOREA 7 1.7
DECA KADENA AIR BASE JAPAN 87 15.5
DECA RAMSTEIN AIR BASE GERMANY 178 24.1
DECA MCB HAWAII KANEOHE HAWAII 77 12.7
DECA COMFLEACT YOKOSUKA JA JAPAN 96 15.3
DECA CAMP ZAMA JAPAN 186 8.5
DECA KEESLER AIR FORCE BASE MISSISSIPPI 98 16.1
DECA US ARMY GARRISON STUTTGART GERMANY 18 1.5
DECA NAS KEY WEST FL FLORIDA 21 2.8
H-22
Component Installation Name State / Country Gross Square Footage
(‘000 SF)
Total Site Delivered
Energy (BBtu)
DECA SUBASE KINGS BAY GA GEORGIA 53 7.5
DECA NAS KINGSVILLE TX TEXAS 15 2.3
DECA KIRTLAND AIR FORCE BASE NEW MEXICO 108 10.5
DECA KUNSAN AIR BASE REPUBLIC OF
KOREA 16 4.1
DECA JBSA - LACKLAND TEXAS 117 15.7
DECA LAJES FIELD PORTUGAL 58 3.5
DECA MCGUIRE AIR FORCE BASE NEW JERSEY 18 1.6
DECA LANGLEY AIR FORCE BASE VIRGINIA 103 16.5
DECA LAUGHLIN AIR FORCE BASE TEXAS 75 4.9
DECA NAS LEMOORE CA CALIFORNIA 44 5.7
DECA JNTEXPBASE LITTLE CREEK FS VA VIRGINIA 100 11.9
DECA LITTLE ROCK AIR FORCE BASE ARKANSAS 100 8.5
DECA US ARMY GARRISON LIVORNO ITALY 26 3.4
DECA LOS ANGELES AIR FORCE BASE CALIFORNIA 75 8.2
DECA LUKE AIR FORCE BASE ARIZONA 102 10.4
DECA MACDILL AIR FORCE BASE FLORIDA 171 12.9
DECA MALMSTROM AIR FORCE BASE MONTANA 68 7.2
DECA MARCH AIR RESERVE BASE CALIFORNIA 117 11.0
DECA MAXWELL AIR FORCE BASE ALABAMA 87 13.4
DECA NAVSTA MAYPORT FL FLORIDA 71 9.0
DECA JOINT BASE LEWIS-MCCHORD WASHINGTON 148 13.8
DECA BEALE AIR FORCE BASE CALIFORNIA 88 13.4
DECA MCCONNELL AIR FORCE BASE KANSAS 56 7.1
DECA MCGUIRE AIR FORCE BASE NEW JERSEY 103 14.3
DECA NAVSUPPACT MIDSOUTH MEMPHIS TN TENNESSEE 61 11.3
DECA NAS MERIDIAN MS MISSISSIPPI 32 5.1
H-23
Component Installation Name State / Country Gross Square Footage
(‘000 SF)
Total Site Delivered
Energy (BBtu)
DECA MINOT AIR FORCE BASE NORTH DAKOTA 56 10.0
DECA MCAS MIRAMAR CALIFORNIA 91 11.4
DECA MISAWA AIR BASE JAPAN 82 10.4
DECA NAVSUBASE NEW LONDON CT CONNECTICUT 28 3.7
DECA CSO NAS MOFFETT FIELD CA CALIFORNIA 52 3.1
DECA MOODY AIR FORCE BASE GEORGIA 64 8.8
DECA MOUNTAIN HOME AIR FORCE BASE IDAHO 54 5.5
DECA NAVSUPPACT NAPLES IT ITALY 85 14.4
DECA NELLIS AIR FORCE BASE NEVADA 130 8.7
DECA NAVSUBASE NEW LONDON CT CONNECTICUT 57 9.4
DECA NAS JRB NEW ORLEANS LA LOUISIANA 47 7.0
DECA MCB CAMP LEJEUNE NC NORTH CAROLINA 46 6.5
DECA NAVAL STATION NEWPORT RI RHODE ISLAND 46 7.0
DECA NAVSTA NORFOLK VA VIRGINIA 79 10.5
DECA NAVBASE CORONADO CALIFORNIA 46 7.0
DECA NAS OCEANA VA VIRGINIA 110 15.1
DECA OFFUTT AIR FORCE BASE NEBRASKA 120 18.7
DECA MCB CAMP S D BUTLER OKINAWA JA JAPAN 291 11.2
DECA PRESIDIO OF MONTEREY CALIFORNIA 111 9.5
DECA OSAN AIR BASE REPUBLIC OF
KOREA 60 5.4
DECA OSAN AIR BASE REPUBLIC OF
KOREA 49 5.2
DECA US ARMY GARRISON STUTTGART GERMANY 5 2.4
DECA MCRD BEAUFORT PI SC SOUTH CAROLINA 44 3.4
DECA US ARMY GARRISON STUTTGART GERMANY 64 8.6
DECA PATRICK AIR FORCE BASE FLORIDA 103 8.4
DECA NAVAL AIR STATION PAX RIVER MARYLAND 56 7.3
H-24
Component Installation Name State / Country Gross Square Footage
(‘000 SF)
Total Site Delivered
Energy (BBtu)
DECA JBPHH PEARL HARBOR - HICKAM HAWAII HAWAII 98 11.2
DECA NAS PENSACOLA FL FLORIDA 74 11.9
DECA PETERSON AIR FORCE BASE COLORADO 102 12.2
DECA PICATINNY ARSENAL NEW JERSEY 22 4.2
DECA 99TH REGIONAL SUPPORT COMMAND PENNSYLVANIA 43 7.5
DECA NAVBASE VENTURA CTY PT MUGU CA CALIFORNIA 65 7.3
DECA NAVSUPPACT NORFOLK NSY VIRGINIA 62 9.0
DECA NSY PORTSMOUTH MAINE 28 5.8
DECA MARINE CORPS BASE QUANTICO VA VIRGINIA 121 15.2
DECA RAF ALCONBURY UNITED KINGDOM 77 10.5
DECA RAF CROUGHTON UNITED KINGDOM 20 3.1
DECA RAF LAKENHEATH UNITED KINGDOM 112 18.4
DECA RAF MENWITH HILL UNITED KINGDOM 34 4.7
DECA RAF MILDENHALL UNITED KINGDOM 14 2.2
DECA RAMSTEIN AIR BASE GERMANY 95 13.9
DECA RAMSTEIN AIR BASE GERMANY 41 10.1
DECA JBSA - RANDOLPH TEXAS 97 14.9
DECA REDSTONE ARSENAL ALABAMA 81 11.8
DECA MCSPTACT KANSAS CITY MO MISSOURI 24 3.1
DECA ROBINS AIR FORCE BASE GEORGIA 70 10.1
DECA US ARMY GARRISON STUTTGART GERMANY 41 5.6
DECA ROCK ISLAND ARSENAL ILLINOIS 33 2.9
DECA NAVSTA ROTA SP SPAIN 50 6.7
DECA CAMP ZAMA JAPAN 67 5.9
DECA NAVBASE SAN DIEGO CA CALIFORNIA 128 16.8
DECA MCB CAMP PENDLETON CA CALIFORNIA 20 3.0
DECA NSA SARATOGA SPRINGS NY NEW YORK 22 3.7
H-25
Component Installation Name State / Country Gross Square Footage
(‘000 SF)
Total Site Delivered
Energy (BBtu)
DECA COMFLEACT SASEBO JA JAPAN 20 2.3
DECA US ARMY GARRISON SCHINNEN NETHERLANDS 24 5.1
DECA SCHOFIELD BARRACKS HAWAII 92 13.5
DECA SCOTT AIR FORCE BASE ILLINOIS 114 18.2
DECA SELFRIDGE ANG BASE MICHIGAN 76 7.9
DECA SEYMOUR JOHNSON AIR FORCE BASE NORTH CAROLINA 66 9.1
DECA SHAW AIR FORCE BASE SOUTH CAROLINA 61 8.6
DECA SHEPPARD AIR FORCE BASE TEXAS 81 9.2
DECA NAS SIGONELLA IT ITALY 68 10.3
DECA NAVSTA EVERETT WA WASHINGTON 60 7.4
DECA SPANGDAHLEM AIR BASE GERMANY 54 8.3
DECA TINKER AIR FORCE BASE OKLAHOMA 87 10.8
DECA TOBYHANNA ARMY DEPOT PENNSYLVANIA 22 3.2
DECA TRAVIS AIR FORCE BASE CALIFORNIA 97 14.8
DECA MCAGCC TWENTYNINE PALMS CA CALIFORNIA 57 7.5
DECA TYNDALL AIR FORCE BASE FLORIDA 76 8.7
DECA USAF ACADEMY COLORADO 67 8.8
DECA VANCE AIR FORCE BASE OKLAHOMA 34 5.2
DECA VANDENBERG AIR FORCE BASE CALIFORNIA 83 5.8
DECA US ARMY GARRISON VICENZA ITALY 55 8.8
DECA US ARMY GARRISON GRAFENWOEHR GERMANY 52 6.4
DECA RAMSTEIN AIR BASE GERMANY 59 11.2
DECA WEST POINT MILITARY RESERVATION NEW YORK 73 12.4
DECA NAS WHIDBEY ISLAND WA WASHINGTON 66 9.7
DECA WHITE SANDS MISSILE RANGE NEW MEXICO 32 4.2
DECA WHITEMAN AIR FORCE BASE MISSOURI 61 8.4
DECA NAS WHITING FLD MILTON FL FLORIDA 22 4.3
H-26
Component Installation Name State / Country Gross Square Footage
(‘000 SF)
Total Site Delivered
Energy (BBtu)
DECA US ARMY GARRISON WIESBADEN GERMANY 62 10.5
DECA WRIGHT PATTERSON AIR FORCE BASE OHIO 123 14.2
DECA COMFLEACT YOKOSUKA JA JAPAN 86 15.2
DECA YOKOTA AIR BASE JAPAN 81 19.8
DECA YONGSAN GARRISON REPUBLIC OF
KOREA 94 15.5
DECA YONGSAN GARRISON REPUBLIC OF
KOREA 89 2.0
DECA MCAS YUMA AZ ARIZONA 34 4.6
DECA YUMA PROVING GROUND ARIZONA 23 2.3
DFAS DFAS ROME NEW YORK 332 131.2
DFAS DFAS LIMESTONE MAINE 141 9.1
DLA DEFENSE SUPPLY CENTER COLUMBUS OHIO 3,841 304.8
DLA DEFENSE DISTRIBUTION DEPOT SAN JOAQUIN CALIFORNIA 5,279 106.5
DLA DEFENSE SUPPLY CENTER RICHMOND VIRGINIA 4,414 251.9
DLA DEFENSE DISTRIBUTION DEPOT SUSQUEHANNA PENNSYLVANIA 7,611 334.9
NGA NGA VIRGINIA 6,653 695.9
NRO BUCKLEY AIR FORCE BASE COLORADO 1,255 343.2
NRO FORT BELVOIR VIRGINIA 1,454 375.3
NRO WHITE SANDS MISSILE RANGE NEW MEXICO 235 81.9
NRO PATRICK AIR FORCE BASE FLORIDA 760 63.4
NRO VANDENBERG AIR FORCE BASE CALIFORNIA 435 23.3
NRO NRO HEADQUARTERS VIRGINIA 1,520 176.0
NSA FORT GEORGE G MEADE MARYLAND 15 4,242.9
WHS WASHINGTON HQS SERVICE VIRGINIA 6,971 980.0
WHS MARK CENTER VIRGINIA 1,876 109.2
I-1
References
Energy Information Administration (EIA), Annual Energy Review, Table 1.11 U.S. Government
Energy Consumption by Agency, Fiscal Years 1975-2011 [online source] (Washington, D.C.
September 27, 2012, accessed April 10, 2019), available from:
http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/annual/showtext.cfm?t=ptb0111.
Energy Information Administration (EIA), 2018 Energy Consumption by Sector, Table 2.1
[online source] (Washington, D.C. March 26, 2019 accessed April 10, 2019), available from
http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/.
Energy Information Administration (EIA), 2018 Monthly Commercial Sector Energy Use, Table
2.3 [online source] (Washington, D.C. March 26, 2019 accessed April 10, 2019), available from
http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/.
Energy Information Administration (EIA), U.S. Overview [online source] (Washington, D.C.
2016, accessed April 10, 2019), available from:
http://www.eia.gov/state/seds/data.cfm?incfile=/state/seds/sep_sum/html/rank_use_gdp.html&si
d=US.
U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Federal Energy
Management Program, Comprehensive Annual Energy Data and Sustainability Performance
[online source] (Washington, D.C., June 1, 2018 accessed April 10, 2019 available from:
http://ctsedwweb.ee.doe.gov/Annual/Report/TotalSiteDeliveredEnergyConsumptionPerGrossSq
uareFootByFederalAgenciesByYear.aspx.
U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Federal Energy
Management Program, Guidelines Establishing Criteria for Excluding Buildings [online source]
(Washington, D.C., January 27, 2006 accessed April 10, 2019), available from:
https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2013/10/f3/exclusion_criteria.pdf.
